Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION BILL (By Order)

MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

CIVIL CONTINGENCIES FUND, 1959–60

Accounts Ordered,
of the Civil Contingencies Fund, 1959–60, showing (1) the Receipts and Payments in connection with the Fund in the year ended the 31st day of March, 1960, and (2) the Distribution of the Capital of the Fund at the commencement and close of the year; with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon."—[Sir E. Boyle.]

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Remote Areas Housing Subsidy

Sir D. Robertson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will reconsider his decision to change the method of calculating the remote areas housing subsidy, in view of the fact that this will reduce the amount paid to Highland local authorities to an extent that they will be unable to build houses to meet the needs of families who are living in houses built over a century ago.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith): No,
Sir nor does my right hon. Friend accept the assertion in the hon. Member's Question.

Sir D. Robertson: How does it happen with this type of legislation that a change is made in payments to local authorities in regard to houses? Does the hon. Member's Answer mean that illegal payments have been made for the past ten

years? Is that the reason why they cannot be continued?

Mr. Galbraith: The object of the additional subsidy, as I think the hon. Member knows, is to compensate for remoteness. It was in order to bring the subsidy arrangements into accord with that purpose that the present changes have been made.

Mr. Manuel: Is the hon. Member aware that severe housing difficulties exist in the Highland counties and that things are becoming increasingly difficult for county housing authorities in these areas by reason of this grant not being available? Will not he consider the position anew and agree to receive representations from the Highland local authorities about the difficulties which exist there?

Mr. Galbraith: I have consulted various hon. Members who represent Highland areas and the impression that I have obtained from them is that although, naturally, local authorities preferred the old arrangements, they recognise that the new ones are fair and provide extra money for remoteness

Sir D. Robertson: The hon. Member has not answered my specific question whether the previous payments were illegal, and whether that was the reason for their not being continued. That is a vital question, to which I must insist upon having an answer.

Mr. Galbraith: The previous payments were not illegal, but my right hon. Friend, after looking into the matter, did not feel that the subsidy was as clearly in line with the statutory provisions as it ought to be.

Sir D. Robertson: In view of the thoroughly unsatisfactory nature of that answer, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment, at the first opportunity.

Electro-Cardiograph Equipment, Sutherland

Sir D. Robertson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland why there is no electro-cardiograph equipment in the County of Sutherland, thus causing many patients to make unnecessary journeys to Inverness, Edinburgh and Glasgow at considerable expense to the National


Health Service and to themselves; and if he will take immediate steps to have suitable equipment installed at the Law-son Memorial Hospital in Golspie.

Mr. Galbraith: Portable equipment is carried by specialists visiting the area, and my right hon. Friend has no evidence that many patients have to travel as the hon. Member suggests. The board of management has, however, decided to purchase an electro-cardiograph for use at this hospital.

Sir D. Robertson: When will this cardiograph be installed?

Mr. Galbraith: I cannot say exactly when it will be installed, but we do not expect that there will be any undue-delay.

Sir D. Robertson: Is it not incredible that in a county of almost 1 million acres there is not a single cardiograph machine—either in the county town or in any of the large villages? Irrespective of what the Minister says, it is a fact that the statements made in my Question were made to me by doctors in the county, and I am quite sure that they are correct. It is sheer neglect.

New Hospital, Dundee

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the latest position with regard to starting building operation on the new general hospital at Dundee.

Mr. Galbraith: The estimated starting date for building operations on the new teaching hospital at Dundee is February, 1963.

Mr. Thomson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is a quite disgraceful delay? Is he aware that the Government initially committed themselves to this hospital in February, 1955? Is he further aware that the Government's excuse for their present attack on many aspects of the Health Service is that they are giving priority to hospital building? Does not this show up the utter falsity of the Government's claims?

Mr. Galbraith: The last time the hon. Gentleman asked me this Question he asked me a very similar supplementary question and I can only direct him to the reply that I then gave.

Fish (Landings)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that there was a reduction of over 80,000 cwt. of wet fish landed on Scottish coasts by British fishing vessels in November, 1960, as compared with November, 1959; if he will state the cause of this diminution; and what steps he has taken and is taking in this connection.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): The reduction in question was accounted for mainly by smaller landings of herring. These were due partly to bad weather and scarcity of herring on certan grounds; and partly to the poor quality of the herring available, which limited demand for human consumption and, together with the limitation on the quantity of surplus herring which may be purchased by the Herring Industry Board at subsidised prices, caused fishermen to restrict their catches. I am sorry that catches had to be restricted, but I do not think it would be proper to encourage the unlimited catching of herring for which there is no market.

Mr. Hughes: Does not this indicate that there has been a disastrous diminution in one of Britain's large industries? Does not this provide evidence of the need for the immediate implementation of the relevant parts of the Fleck Report? Will the Secretary of State take steps to do that without further delay?

Mr. Maclay: As I think the hon. and learned Members knows, it is not too wise to draw final conclusion from the result of any one season's fishing for any kind of fish. I agree that the Fleck Report requires immediate study, and I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that we are getting on with that with a view to its implementation, or the implementation of those parts of it which we decide to implement, in due course.

Mental Homes and Institutions, Edinburgh and Midlothian

Mr. Willis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many persons are still awaiting admission to mental homes and institutions in Edinburgh and Midlothian.

Mr. Galbraith: On 1st February there were thirty-eight persons awaiting admission to mental hospitals in Edinburgh and Midlothian. There were 117 persons from Edinburgh and Midlothian on the regional waiting list for admission to mental deficiency hospitals; of these twenty-four were classified as urgent.

Mr. Willis: Is not it rather shocking that, after ten years of Tory rule, we still have these long waiting dists? When will there be an appreciable change for the better in the situation?

Mr. Galbraith: I think the hon. Gentleman knows that there is a new ward which was opened at Gogarburn Hospital where thirty extra beds became available last week. The remaining beds will be brought into use as soon as possible, and a further sixty supplied during this summer.

New Maternity Hospital, Bellshill

Mr. Timmons: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when it is estimated that the new maternity hospital at Bells-hill is likely to be completed.

Mr. Galbraith: The Western Regional Hospital Board expects that the hospital will be completed in the autumn of this year

Mr. Timmons: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in 1953 a decision was taken to go ahead with this hospital? Is he aware that it has taken a considerable time to get it completed, and can he give any reason for the delay?

Mr. Galbraith: I cannot admit that there has been any avoidable delay since building began.

Mr. Ross: There have been eight years.

Town Centres (Redevelopment)

Mr. Manuel: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what instructions he has sent to local authorities on the subject of the redevelopment of town centres, arising from the issue of Circular No. 33/1960.

Mr. Galbraith: My right hon. Friend's Department is in regular contact on this matter with the local authorities concerned, and if it appears that general

guidance can usefully be offered this will certainly be done.

Mr. Manuel: Is not the Secretary of State aware that this is rather a surprising reply? On 23rd May last year the Circular quoted in my Question was sent out to Scottish housing authorities asking for an estimate of their needs. Is it the case that the Secretary of State now decides the priorities? If he is not to give some reply to the housing authorities, after they have made their reports to him, but is merely waiting hopefully for something to turn up, is not the right hon. Gentleman misleading the whole of Scotland? Is not the supposed reason he sent out the Circular to create some better conditions in town centres?

Mr. Galbraith: Because most town centres are different from each other, the best way to handle the matter is by direct contact between my right hon. Friend's officers and the interested local authorities.

Edinburgh-Glasgow Road

Mr. Stodart: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will impose a speed limit of 50 miles-per-hour on vehicles using the A.8 road, from Edinburgh to Glasgow, for an experimental period.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. R. Brooman-White): On existing evidence my right hon. Friend does not think it practicable to impose a 50 miles-per-hour speed limit on the whole road, but he is considering the possibility of imposing a 40 miles-per-hour speed limit on certain specific lengths.

Mr. Stodart: Can my hon. Friend say what is the total length of the road on which it is proposed to impose a 40 m.p.h. limit? Is he aware of the great success which attended the introduction of the 50 m.p.h. limit on long stretches of road in England and Wales last Whitsun? Will he explain why he is not willing to try this as an experiment for a short period only on a road which is famed for accidents?

Mr. Brooman-White: I would rather not go into details about the specific lengths of road where there will be a 40 m.p.h. limit until my right hon


Friend's officers have had an opportunity to discuss the matter with the local authorities concerned. Regarding the more general question, it is felt that drivers would not think a 50 m.p.h. limit on considerable stretches of this road was reasonable, and consequently it would be extremely difficult to enforce

Mr. T. Fraser: Is the Minister aware that some of us who use this road regularly think that it would be very reasonable to have a 50 m.p.h. limit on the whole of it? Is he aware that there is no part of this road where it is safe to drive at more than 50 m.p.h.? Is he also aware that if there is a restriction on speed for only short stretches the tendency will be for motorists to make the best speed they can? Is he aware that on this road, which is a three-lane highway, accidents are. unfortunately, frequently fatal, and will he have another look at this matter?

Mr. Brooman-White: We are constantly considering the whole question of this road. It must be remembered that the accident rate on this road is not significantly greater than that on comparable stretches of other trunk roads in Scotland which bear a similar volume of traffic.

Mr. Woodburn: Is the Minister aware that the number of accidents recently has alarmed the public? As he has repeatedly said that the accidents are not due to speed but to the junctions in the roads, is he proposing to do anything to deal with those junctions, or is he going to wait until a proper analysis is made of the causes of accidents, if they are not due to speed?

Mr. Brooman-White: We are doing a considerable amount of work on the junctions, as the right hon. Gentleman knows.

Mr. Stodart: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many lay-bys there will be on the A.8 road from Edinburgh to Glasgow when the four under construction are completed; and when he expects to be in a position to assess the effect of these on reducing accidents.

Mr. Brooman-White: Thirty-six, to which a further nine will be added in the course of the major reconstruction at Bathgate and between Newhouse and

Baillieston. These extra lay-bys should have an immediate effect in reducing the number of accidents, and my right hon. Friend will call for reports in about three months.

Mr. Stodart: Is my hon. Friend aware that, while all motorists will welcome the provision of these lay-bys, they will not by themselves allay the very genuine anxiety felt by experienced motorists who use this road and find it a dangerous road? Is he aware that, despite the provision of lay-bys, people will continue to park by the roadside until they are forbidden to do so? As this road has all the characteristics of a motorway will he not forbid parking altogether?

Mr. Brooman-White: The number of lay-bys now being constructed will represent about one per mile. They will be clearly signposted. I think we should see the effect of that before we take further decisions.

Municipal Houses

Mr. Manuel: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the number of municipal houses to be built this year.

Mr. Galbraith: My right hon. Friend does not expect the number to be any less than last year, when almost 18,000 houses were completed.

Mr. Manuel: Is not this a rather shocking reply? Have not the Government repeatedly said that they are going to have a great surge forward to eliminate the hundreds of thousands of decaying houses which are cluttering up most of our cities and which are breeding grounds for disease? Is he further aware that there is also the problem of the special needs category; that there are grossly overcrowded homes and thousands of people in sub-tenancies? Will not he get on with the job, and inject some life into the occupants of St. Andrew's House and into this housing question?

Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Gentleman's Question related particularly to municipal houses. He will appreciate that there are other agencies engaged in building, such as the S.S.H.A., the new towns and private house builders. Taking


those into consideration, there were 1,300 more houses finished last year than the year before.

Glen Nevis Hydro-Electric Scheme

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what decision he has taken regarding an inquiry in to the proposed Glen Nevis hydro-electric scheme.

Mr. Woodburn: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the future development of hydro-electric schemes in Scotland.

Mr. Ross: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the nature of the representations he has received about an inquiry into the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board; and what replies he has given.

Mr. Hannan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the increasing concern in the north of Scotland about criticisms which are being made of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board; and if he will make a statement about hydro-electric development.

Mr. Maclay: I am considering various representations which have been made to me in connection with the proposed Glen Nevis hydro-electric scheme and I hope to make a statement shortly.

Mr. Thomson: Will not the Secretary of State tell the House plainly that the work done by the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board over a number of years shows the value of such work to the Highlands of Scotland, and that he will firmly set his face against any attempt to hold up hydro-electric development?

Mr. Maclay: The hon. Member knows that on many occasions in this House I have paid high tribute to the work of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board. But the Question on the Order Paper related to a specific scheme, and I have given an answer to that.

Mr. Woodburn: On the more general point, is the Minister aware that there has been considerable controversy over this matter, and that representations have been made by the National Trust? Is he aware that I have discovered that

there is considerable misunderstanding about the purpose of these hydro-electric schemes?

Mr. Nabarro: There is no misunderstanding here.

Mr. Woodburn: Is he aware that it has been thought that they were in competition with coal, instead of being complementary to coal production? Will not the right hon. Gentleman have some kind of inquiry in order to make clear what are the proposals about the future development of hydro-electric schemes from the point of view of the development of power in Scotland as a whole?

Mr. Maclay: I have noted what the right hon. Member has said. If he reads my original Answer he will see that the whole matter is under review in relation to this scheme.

Mr. Ross: While we appreciate the tributes paid by the Secretary of State in the past, may I ask if he realises that we would appreciate it much more if he stood by what he claims is his feeling for the Board and supported it and did not give way to the underground pressures

Mr. Nabarro: They are not underground, they are on the surface.

Mr. Ross: —pressing against it, who have no interest and have never shown any interest in the Highlands of Scotland?

Mr. Maclay: As the hon. Member knows, every scheme which comes forward is examined with the greatest care, and objections are examined with the greatest care and appropriate action is taken at the right moment.

Mr. Hannan: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us that he will resist the blandishments of outside sources that are putting pressure on him because of their personal interest? Will he inform the Aims of Industry that it is wide of the mark and that it would be serving Scotland much better if it brought some industry to Scotland, where there are 80,000 unemployed, and allowed the Board to get on with its own job?

Mr. Maclay: It would not be appropriate for me to get drawn into discussion at Question Time of various matters of that kind.

Mr. Nabarro: Will not my right hon. Friend agree that the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board has now been operating for eighteen years and has vested a sum approaching £200 million in capital schemes? Having regard to the fact that there has never been any sort of independent inquiry into the operations of this Board, as for example the Herbert Committee inquiry into the electricity supply industry, or the Fleck Committee inquiry into the National Coal Board, is not the time propitious for an independent inquiry to be established into the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board at an early date, to end the controversy?

Mr. Maclay: I do not think that my hon. Friend would expect me to add to my original reply in which I said that I was considering various representations.

Mr. Steele: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland which local authorities have made representations to him against the proposed Glen Nevis hydroelectric scheme; and what has been the nature of his replies.

Mr. Maclay: I have received objections from Inverness County Council and Lochaber District Council. These objections have been communicated to the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, and will be considered with the scheme in accordance with the requirements of the Hydro-Electric Development (Scotland) Act, 1943.

Mr. Steele: I appreciate that there may be some inquiry into the question of the Glen Nevis hydro-electric scheme itself—that is in accordance with the Act—but would the Secretary of State give an assurance that he is not considering any form of general inquiry into the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board because, in effect, a Select Committee of this House actually did this operation and came to very favourable conclusions?

Mr. Maclay: I am not prepared to go further than I did in answer to an earlier Question.

Housing, Culross

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made in the last six months

towards the solution of the housing shortage in the Burgh of Culross; what has been the nature of the correspondence between the Scottish Office and the burgh council on the subject; and what were the terms of the Department's reply.

Mr. Galbralth: Consideration of the burgh's housing needs and the question of further assistance by the Scottish Special Housing Association, which was deferred at the council's request, is again active following on a letter from the clerk dated 24th December, 1960. After discussion with the cleck, my right hon. Friend's Department wrote on 6th February inviting the council to submit specific proposals and certain financial information. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the Department's letter.

Mr. Hamilton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that if there had been a house built for each letter sent, the problem would now have been solved? Is he aware that this has been a festering sore for a very long time now and there has been no progress whatever? Will he stop this procrastination and get on with the building of houses?

Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Member must recognise that the matter was deferred at the council's request.

Mr. Hamilton: That is the trouble.

Mr. Galbraith: It is now active again, and the best thing to do is to await the answers to the letter sent to the council.

Nurses

Mr. Gourlay: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of restrictions in the conditions of service of some hospital nurses; and whether he will improve the consultative machinery in the hospital service.

Mr. Galbraith: I am not clear what the hon. Member has in mind in the first part of the Question. As regards the second part, it is for staff and management at each hospital to consider how consultation can best be carried out. Either side can take the initiative in seeking the establishment of a formal committee.

Mr. Gourlay: Is the Minister aware that while there are excellent staff relations in the majority of Scottish hospitals and it is recognised that discipline is necessary, nevertheless in many hospitals of Scotland discipline is overbearing or petty and sometimes that affects patients' recovery? Therefore, will he do something to remedy this situation in order to stop staff wastage and to help nurse recruiting?

Mr. Galbraith: I think most of these matters are suitable for examination on a local basis and are not appropriate to be brought to the notice of my right hon. Friend.

Teachers, Fife

Mr. Gourlay: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that Fife Education Authority is at present employing 280 uncertificated teachers, and that one large secondary school has no certificated teacher in English; and whether, in view of this staffing position, he will take immediate steps to effect an improvement.

Mr. Brooman-White: My right hon. Friend is aware of the serious shortages of teachers in Fife and in some other areas in Scotland, and he is doing, and will continue to do, all he can to improve the supply of teachers.

Mr. Gourlay: Is the Minister aware that the position in Fife at the moment is extremely bad, and that it is getting steadily worse and that there are still too many disincentives in the teaching profession? Will he treat the matter as one of extreme urgency and put into effect many of the recommendations he is bound to receive from various quarters in Scotland?

Mr. Brooman-White: We shall certainly do all we can to improve the situation.

Smallholdings, Crofting Counties

Mr. Willis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many new smallholdings have been created by the Department of Agriculture in the crofting counties during the past five years.

Mr. Maclay: Five new smallholdings have been created by the Department of Agriculture in the crofting counties during the past five years.

Mr. Willis: Is not that a deplorable record in an area in which for many years people have been clamouring for a programme of land resettlement? Will the right hon. Gentleman show some urgency about this matter?

Mr. Maclay: I should point out that there are about 20,000 crofts in the crofting counties. The Government's policy, which I am certain is right, is directed towards securing in every possible way the effective use of the various areas they cover.

Smoking and Lung Cancer

Mr. Millan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to draw to the attention of the public, particularly young people, the connection between smoking and the incidence of lungcancer.

Mr. Galbraith: Local health authorities have been helping for some time to make generally known, particularly among young people, the possible consequence of smoking. I take this opportunity of supporting their appeal to parents and others to make sure that young people are aware of the facts.

Mr. Millan: Is the Minister aware that deaths from lung cancer are tending to increase and that the local health authorities have to combat very expensive advertising by the tobacco companies, much of which is directed to young people? Will the Department of Health take the initiative in this matter and let us have a far more vigorous campaign than we have had so far?

Mr. Galbraith: I do not think that there is any doubt that people do know. The recent survey carried out in Edinburgh showed that 98 per cent. of the people knew of the possible connection. Therefore, I think it is a matter for individual choice and responsibility.

Civil Defence Plans, Holy Loch Area

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what further Civil Defence plans he has for the protection of the inhabitants living in the neighbourhood of the Holy Loch as a result of the establishment of the Polaris submarine base there.

Mr. Maclay: The responsibility for detailed planning of Civil Defence rests with the local authorities, but their basic problems have not been changed by the provision of these facilities

Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that a Clyde safety plan has been outlined in the Scotsman newspaper? That states that there are provisions for restrictions on food, milk and other food, in the area and that in certain circumstances two villages might be evacuated. Could he say whether there will be any provision for the compensation of farmers or people likely to be affected?

Mr. Maclay: I think the hon. Member is confusing the Civil Defence plans and the normal precautions taken in relation to nuclear installations in this country.

Mr. Hughes: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Farm Improvement Scheme (Grants)

Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the average length of time between the receipt of an application for a grant under the farm improvement scheme and its final approval or rejection.

Mr. Maclay: Usually about two months, but at present it is taking longer in some areas because the investigation of applications has been held up by foot-and-mouth disease restrictions.

Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is quite a common thing for farmers to say that they are going to get on with the work themselves because it takes so long for the grants to be approved? Can something be done to speed up the procedure?

Mr. Maclay: Certainly, everything possible will be done to make the procedure as quick as we can make it. If my hon. Friend will send me any details, I shall certainly look into them.

Swimming Pool, Kirkintilloch

Mr. Bence: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied that the money to be sanctioned for expenditure by Kirkintilloch Burgh Council on a swimming pool to cost £100,000 has been properly spent in accordance with

the terms of his sanction; if he is aware that the lowest tender for this project was £152,000 plus fees, and had to be modified to bring the cost down to £119,000 plus fees; and if he will inquire into the circumstances necessitating increased loan sanction.

Mr. Brooman-White: The loan sanction applied for and approved in this case was on the basis of the modified costs of £119,000 plus fees; no question of increased sanction arises.

Mr. Bence: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is concern in the Burgh of Kirkintilloch over the fact that an architect, a friend of the provost, put forward the proposition that, free of charge, he would prepare a model and make the preparatory plans for a swimming-pool, suitable for children as well as adults, costing not more than £100,000; that, on that statement, the councillors accepted the proposition and appointed him the architect, but that, when the scheme is submitted for tender the cost turns out to be £152,000? It is up 52 per cent. If he had worked for the company that I worked for he would have got the sack. Will the hon. Gentleman look into this, as it is quite unprofessional conduct for any friend of the provost to suggest that he will do that sort of work for nothing if he gets the job?

Mr. Brooman-White: The appointment of the architect is entirely for the council. If there is any question of breach of professional etiquette, I imagine that it would be a matter for the appropriate professional association to deal with, not for the Government.

Petrol Filling Stations (Illumination)

Sir C. Thornton-Kemsley: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that there is a general tendency to provide increasingly bright illumination at petrol filling stations, to the detriment of road safety; and what advice he has given to planning authorities about the type and intensity of lighting at existing filling stations, and the conditions, regarding the brightness of the lighting systems, to be attached to the granting of planning permission for the erection of new stations.

Mr. Galbraith: My right hon. Friend has had no representation along the lines suggested by my hon. Friend, but he is looking into the matter to see whether guidance to local authorities is necessary.

Hydro-Electricity

Mr. Small: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the nature of the representations he has received from local authorities in Scotland about the continued development of hydro-electricity in Scotland.

Mr. Maclay: None, Sir, although last autumn two local authorities wrote to me urging that there should be no amalgamation of the two Scottish Electricity Boards.

Mr. Small: Does not the Secretary of State appreciate that many members of local authorities are very concerned about the number of private organisations, such as Aims of Industry, that are continually attacking the work of the Hydro-Electric Board?

Mr. Maclay: I am very well aware of many of the things which are written in the Press, which I read very carefully.

Invalid Tricycles (Glasgow)

Mr. Millan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to improve the repair service for invalid tricycles in Glasgow, in order to eliminate such delays as the one of six weeks about which he and the hon. Member for Craigton have been in correspondence.

Mr. Galbraith: The stock of spare parts held centrally in Glasgow is being increased, and more spare tricycles of various types are being held in stock to be lent for use while repairs are being carried out.

Mr. Millan: Is the Under-Secretary aware that the case about which I have written to him is not an isolated one, and that there are continued complaints about the servicing of these vehicles in Glasgow? If the Government will not do the sensible thing and get rid of these vehicles altogether, can they not show a little more sense of urgency in improving the supply of spares, for example, and the supply of spare machines?

Mr. Galbraith: We are improving the spares position, and are increasing the number of spare machines from 21 to 56.

Bridges

Mr. Lilley: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that the movement of industrial traffic in Scotland is hampered by the presence of many weak bridges; and what action he contemplates to overcome this handicap to industrial transport.

Mr. Brooman-White: The strengthening of bridges of all sizes is a most important part of our road programme. Since 1st April, 1956, well over 300 have been strengthened, rebuilt or reprovided on a different road line. Of these over 50 have been substantial structures of span greater than 65 ft.

Mr. Lilley: I am greateful for that reply, but is the Minister aware of the considerable inconvenience caused to users of heavy industrial transport by the existence of many load-restricted bridges? Would he give an assurance to the House that the remedial measures being taken will be continued, when his funds are being concentrated on the reconstruction of major trunk roads?

Mr. Brooman-White: We are very conscious of the problem. That is why a substantial proportion of our funds has been used on these smaller schemes of which these bridges form part.

Local Authorities (Abstracts of Accounts)

Mr. J. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will consider amending the Regulations prescribing the forms in which the abstracts of accounts are to be made up by burghs and counties in Scotland so as to provide for the inclusion, clearly and separately, of accounts of all transactions, including inter-departmental transactions, arising out of the execution of capital works by direct labour

Mr. Galbraith: The Abstract of Accounts Regulations made in 1952 are, to some extent, rendered out of date by subsequent legislation, and their revision is under consideration. In considering any revision, the suggestion made by the hon. Member will be kept in view.

Mr. Henderson: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his reply. If he cannot fully accede to the request in the Question on the Order Paper, can I have an assurance that he and the Department will devise some means whereby the labour departments of boroughs and counties show the actual costs of the work carried out in those circumstances?

Mr. Galbraith: I think that the best thing is to see what happens as a result of the consideration of this matter. It is at present under review.

Mr. Mclnnes: Rather than do what his hon. Friend asks, will not the hon. Member take steps to ensure more timely publication of the Departments Annual Statistical Returns to this House, because I have had to complain of these Returns being six and seven years late?

Mr. Galbraith: I know that this is a very difficult matter, but it is partly the fault of the local authorities.

Hatston Aerodrome, Orkney

Mr. Grimond: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from the local authorities in Orkney about Hatston aerodrome; and how the situation now stands.

Mr. Maclay: The local authorities in Orkney are interested in, and have communicated with me about the possibility of acquiring the built-up area of Hatston aerodrome, which is in part used for housing and in part for commercial purposes. Ownership of the aerodrome is vested in the Admiralty, and I am in consultation with my right hon. and noble Friend the First Lord on the matter.

Mr. Grimond: The Secretary of State may be in consultation with the Admiralty but, at the same time, would it not be worth considering whether there should not now be some sort of conference or "gt-together" of the authorities involved, in order to try to settle the matter? Everyone seems anxious to make progress, but no progress seems to be made.

Mr. Maclay: I think that the hon. Gentleman realises as well as anyone that this matter is highly complex. We

are making progress, and we hope that decisions will be come to fairly soon.

Consumer Protection

Mr. Hamilton: asked the Lord Advocate what progress he has made in drafting legislation designed to protect consumers from unfair trading practices, details of which have been brought to his notice.

Mr. Maclay: I have been asked to reply. I am considering, in consultation with my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate, who greatly regrets that owing to ill health he is unable to be here today, and my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, the representations which have been made, but I am not yet ready to make a statement.

Mr. Hamilton: I am sure we all hope that the Lord Advocate is not overworking trying to draft a solution to this problem. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is now several months since the Lord Advocate promised us that he would try to introduce legislation to deal with this firm of N. G. Napier, which is a bare-faced robber? Is he aware that only this morning I received a letter from one of my constituents telling me that he was called to the house of his guarantor, and that, as a result of that guarantor's wages having been arrested, my constituent suffered two broken ribs and two bruised ribs at the hands of the guarantor? We shall have a "Congo" in Scotland if we are not careful. Will the Secretary of State set about this job, and get rid of these despicable people?

Mr. Maclay: The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to comment without notice on that very interesting statement that he has just made, for which, I assume, he must accept responsibility. I assure him that no time is being wasted, but the problem is a very difficult one.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Bank Rate

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that the present high Bank Rate is handicapping British industry in competing with foreign firms, diminishing British exports, causing unemployment


in Great Britain, and depriving Great Britain of foreign currency; and if he will state his plans for assisting Great Britain and British industry and employment in these difficulties.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): I do nof accept the hon. and learned Member's analysis of the effects of the present level of Bank Rate. With regard to the second part of the Question, these matters were fully debated by the House on 6th and 7th February.

Mr. Hughes: If the Chancellor does lot accept the implications in the first part of my Question, is he aware that the country's great newspapers do, and that his financial and fiscal policies have caused industrial chaos and much unemployment? If he is unable to deal with the problems himself, will he take expert advice on the subject—from this side of the House?

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware that in January of this year there were 42,000 fewer unemployed than there were in January of last year. As to the other part of his Question, I adhere to Bank Rate as one of the ways of regulating the economy.

Mr. H. Wilson: Even if the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not accept these propositions—most of which are self-evident—does he accept the proposition that higher Bank Rate has increased our National Debt charge by £56 million this year as compared with last—about the level of the additional health charges and economies? Secondly, does he not accept the Treasury's estimate that we are paying an additional £15 million or £20 million for foreign exchange as a result of high Bank Rate?

Mr. Lloyd: I would not accept the right hon. Gentleman's figures without notice, but I quite agree that a high-level Bank Rate does cost money. That is one of its disadvantages. But if it cures excessive demand at home it is beneficial to the economy.

Mr. Wilson: The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to our economic debate on 6th and 7th February, but is he aware that he did not then refer at all to this problem, and that neither he nor his immediate

predecessor has ever answered the very powerful argument on monetary policy put forward by the very authoritative Radcliffe Committee?

Mr. Lloyd: Whether or not matters dealing with the consequences of the Bank Rate were referred to in that debate, it will not have escaped the right hon. Gentleman's notice, I am sure, that since I have been Chancellor of the Exchequer, Bank Rate has been reduced on two occasions.

Mr. Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the very unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the subject on the Adjournment at the very earliest opportunity.

Civil Servants (Salary Increases)

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the cost falling in the financial year 1960–61 of awards announced on 11th January, 1961, including retrospection to August, 1958. to civil servants in respect of salary increases of £95 to £230 per annum, and including back payments of £200 to £500 per civil servant; and what will be the increased annual cost of the higher scales in future years.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: About £2½ million, and just under £1 million, respectively.

Mr. Nabarro: In view of the continuous exhortations which have fallen on private industry and commerce to increase their efficiency and output, could not my right hon. and learned Friend do something to impress upon the bureaucracy, of which he is the titular head, the need similarly to increase its efficiency, and what serious encouragement is he giving to doing so, in view of the rising cost of the Civil Service?

Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend's Question relates to certain awards, and those awards were given by the Civil Service Arbitration Tribunal after the Treasury and the Institution of Professional Civil Servants had failed to agree.

Exporters (Taxation)

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the inadequate level of exports this year and the adverse balance of payments'


results, what further consideration, and with what result, he has given to incentive tax concessions to British exporters.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I am satisfied that it would not be desirable to introduce special tax concessions confined to exporters. I am considering the other aspects of this matter.

Mr. Nabarro: The Question does not ask for special tax concessions unique only to exporters. Would not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there is now established a very definite connection between our penal level of direct taxation and the inadequacies of our export efforts? What is he doing in this context to apply himself to that particular problem?

Mr. Lloyd: That is obviously an aspect of the matter which I must consider in connection with the coming Budget.

Mr. Jay: Does the Chancellor believe that taxation has a major influence on exports, one way or the other?

Mr. Nabarro: Of course, it has.

Mr. Lloyd: I think that a high level of taxation is a disincentive to individual effort.

Mr. Gaitskell: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the German Government offers to German exporters certain tax advantages in their exports? Can he confirm whether this is so or not, and can he say whether he thinks that the present arrangements among different countries are fair and consistent with their obligations under G.A.T.T.?

Mr. Lloyd: This is a matter which I have had closely under attention. So far as the German Government are concerned, the only other concession is a drawback or withdrawal of turnover tax. In our case, there is a rebate of the Purchase Tax paid. I do not know of any direct incentives.

Taxation

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will clarify and simplify the tax structure of the nation by introducing a corporation tax for companies in place of

Income Tax and Profits Tax and a graduated Income Tax for individuals in place of Income Tax and Surtax.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I have noted my hon. Friend's suggestions, but I cannot anticipate my Budget statement.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Would my right hon. and learned Friend keep in mind the fact that the present taxation system is completely illogical, because Income Tax is levied on the income of individuals, but is levied only on the profits of companies? Would it not be better to separate the two systems so that adjustment can be made for individual taxation apart from companies or for companies apart from individuals?

Mr. Lloyd: I will, of course, consider carefully what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. H. Wilson: While the Chancellor cannot anticipate his Budget statement, whatever the President of the Board of Trade may do, is he aware that, while we dissociate ourselves from the latter part of the Question on the Order Paper, there is a case to consider the corporation Profits Tax and Income Tax, so that any future Chancellor making remissions of personal taxation does not automatically give a big hand-out to big business in consequence?

Mr. Lloyd: I will certainly bear in mind what the right hon. Gentleman has said.

Estates (Crown Nominee Account)

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many estates of those born out of wedlock are handled by the Crown Nominee Accoun' on the average each year.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The average number of estates handled in 1959 and 1966 was 130.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: In the 130 cases which my right hon. and learned Friend has mentioned, has he noticed one of a constituent of mine, whose aunt died leaving £3,000, which he and his brother expected to get, but, because at a late stage it was discovered that the aunt was born out of wedlock, the estate was escheated to the Crown and he and his brother got only a small proportion of their aunt's estate? Is that fair?

Mr. Lloyd: I have not noticed that case, but if my hon. Friend will speak to me about it, I will willingly discuss it.

Clergy (Income Tax Relief)

Mr. Hendry: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the consultations with the various churches about Income Tax relief for the clergy, promised by his predecessor on 6th July, 1960, have been completed.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Discussions with representatives of the Churches' Main Committee have taken place at Somerset House.

Mr. Hendry: While thanking my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply, may I ask him if he will answer the Question? Are the consultations complete, and if they are not complete, does he expect them to be completed in time for the forthcoming Budget?

Mr. Lloyd: So far as I know, the Churches' Main Committee has made all the representations it wishes to make.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Strategic Goods (Control)

38 and 39. Commander Courtney: asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) what are the amendments he proposes to make to the list of countries contained in the Second Schedule to the Strategic Goods (Control) Order, 1959;

(2) if he will state the amendments necessary to the Export of Goods (Control) Order, 1960, in respect of items whose export from the United Kingdom to any country is prohibited under paragraph 1 (i) of this Order, to enable it to include the provisions of the Strategic Goods (Control) Order, 1959, as amended by the Strategic Goods (Control) (Amendment) Order, 1960, which at present apply only to Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, China and the other countries listed in the Second Schedule to that Order.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Niall Mac pherson): The Export of Goods (Control) Order, 1960, is made under the Provisions of the Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act, 1939. There is no power under that Act to

amend the Order on the lines suggested. My right hon. Friend is not proposing to amend the Second Schedule to the Strategic Goods (Control) Order. 1959.

Commander Courtney: If this embargo is to be effective, would not my hon. Friend agree that it is necessary to amend it from time to time to include such countries as Cuba and Guinea?

Mr. Macpherson: That is a matter which I shall pass on to my right hon. Friend for consideration.

Mr. H. Wilson: Since this list of embargoed goods is still based on the principle, if not the detail, of forbidding ships which go at more than 12 knots, and since we have now seen a satellite dispatch a rocket towards Venus, would not the hon. Gentleman agree that it is time that the whole question of this embargo list should be looked at again? In order to help the House, which is now more widely in favour of more Anglo-Soviet trade, will he publish a White Paper showing the present list of embargoed goods, so that we have a complete and consolidated list?

Mr. Macpherson: I shall ask my right hon. Friend to consider the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion.

Exports

Mr. Gower: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will consider the institution of national certificates, or awards, to be granted annually to the company or firm which attains the most meritorious export achievement, to the company or firm which achieves the largest proportionate increase in its export trade, and to the company or firm which is most successful in a new market in a foreign country.

Mr. N. Macpherson: My right hon. Friend is considering various suggestions of this kind.

Mr. Gower: Will my hon. Friend ask his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, in his consideration of this proposal, to take account of a wartime precedent by which the excellence of performance of industrial firms was officially recognised?

Mr. Macpherson: Yes. My right hon. Friend will consider that, but my hon. Friend will bear in mind that the war


came to an end, whereas it might be difficult to bring any such schemes which might be initiated now to an end.

Company Mergers

Mr. Jay: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will introduce legislation to ensure that proposed company mergers, or amalgamations, shall require to be approved as in the public interest either by the Monopolies Commission or a monopolies court with terms similar to those of the Restrictive Practices Court.

Mr, N. Macpherson: No, Sir.

Mr. Jay: Are the Government content to watch competition being further and further curtailed in British industry and do nothing about it at all?

Mr. Macpherson: It is not clear that all mergers will work against the public interest in the same way, for example, as restrictive trade practices are considered to work against the public interest unless the contrary is proved.

Mr. Jay: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that the ré gime of the Restrictive Practices Court is to judge which practices are against the public interest? Why should not the same apply to mergers?

Mr. Macpherson: One very clear reason is that before a conclusion could be reached by the appropriate body a long time would necessarily elapse, and during that time the position might have changed entirely.

Take-over Bids

Mr. E. Fletcher: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will ask the Jenkins Committee on company law to make an interim report on legislation concerning take-over bids.

Mr. N. Macpherson: No, Sir. Takeover bids are only one aspect of the relationship between directors and shareholders which the Committee has under review.

Mr. Fletcher: Does not the Minister realise that they are a very important aspect and one which is causing very great public concern today? Does he

not consider that it would be very useful, therefore, if the Jenkins Committee were asked to make an interim report on the subject as a matter of urgency?

Mr. Macpherson: No, Sir. There are very many questions of urgency being considered by the Jenkins Committee, and my right hon. Friend does not wish to interrupt its consideration of these problems by giving it the task of making a particular interim report.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY

Mr. Donnelly: asked the Prime Minister whether he will attend the resumed meeting of the United Nations General Assembly in New York in March.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I have nothing to add to what I said on 2nd and 7th February.

Mr. Donnelly: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the statement that has been made in another place about a significant shift in the Government's China policy is welcome, and, in these circumstances and in his own absence from the United Nations, may I ask what steps the Prime Minister is taking to publicise one of the few good things which the Government are doing in these dismal days?

The Prime Minister: The Question asked is whether I would go to the new meeting of the General Assembly. The General Assembly starts again on 7th March, and the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Meeting takes place here on 8th March. Therefore, I think the answer must be that I cannot do so.

Mr. Gaitskell: Is there not a possibility that the General Assembly may last considerably longer than the Prime Ministers' Conference? If it were to last longer, would the Prime Minister consider going a little later on during this Session?

The Prime Minister: Normally, the Foreign Secretary and other Ministers lead the British delegation. There were special circumstances in which I did go last autumn after much consideration, and those circumstances might arise again.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCHOOL LEAVERS

Mr. Prentice: asked the Prime Minister whether he will appoint a special Ministerial committee to consider the economic and social problems relating to the increase in the number of school leavers in 1961, 1962, and 1963, compared with the preceding years.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. Prentice: Is the Prime Minister aware that the number of school leavers this year will be 20 per cent. higher than last year, and that next year there will be a still larger increase? Does he not think that this will lead to a lot of very great problems in youth employment, apprenticeships, university places, youth services and all the rest? Does not this demand special action, even from a Government as complacent as this one?

The Prime Minister: The action is being taken. The British Employers' Confederation, the Trades Union Congress and the nationalised industries have set up the Industrial Training Council, in which the Ministry of Labour and the education authorities are associated, and some other steps are being taken.

Mr. Lee: Is the Prime Minister aware that the results so far from the Industrial Training Council have been extremely disappointing? In fact, we are now going into the peak of the bulge, and for the next two or three years that will be maintained, and yet the number of young school leavers taking up apprenticeships is very low, so that the country is in grave danger of not having sufficient skilled personnel.

The Prime Minister: The increase in the take-in of apprentices does depend, in my view, upon co-oiperation between employers and trade unions.

Mr. Hannan: May I ask the Prime Minister to reconsider this matter? Is he not aware that the organisations of which he speaks produced the Carr Report, which is generally accepted as having little effect upon the future? Is he not further aware that great social problems are involved, and that in Scotland, for example, there are four or five young people chasing after one job, whereas in the Midlands of England there are four or five jobs available for each young person? This matter has

been summed up in the words of Professor Gaibraith, who said that our young people are either learning maths and science or Russian.

The Prime Minister: Very important steps are being taken. I do not think that the plan proposed in the Question is the right approach. We must follow along all the different lines which are now at work.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER AND PRESIDENT KENNEDY (MEETING)

Mr. Healey: asked the Prime Minister if he will now state the date on which he will meet President Kennedy.

The Prime Minister: As has already been announced, I have accepted an invitation from the President of the United States to visit Washington at the end of my tour of the West Indies. I plan to arrive in Washington on 4th April and to have talks with President Kennedy during the next two or three days.

Mr. Healey: We welcome the fact that the Prime Minister has at last managed to fix the date of this important meeting. Will he not agree that a large number of very urgent issues require co-ordination of policy between our two countries before the next eight weeks have elapsed? Is he in direct consultation with President Kennedy concerning the very grave situation in the Congo?

The Prime Minister: A large number of preliminary steps are being taken, with possible discussions I would have. The economic team has already gone out to discuss the economic aspects. There is constant communication between the two Governments on the diplomatic level.

Mr. Gaitskell: Has the Prime Minister considered the possibility of the Foreign Secretary or even the Lord Privy Seal going over a little in advance to prepare the way for these important talks with the President of the United States?

The Prime Minister: The Foreign Secretary will be going over a day or two in advance.

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Prime Minister if, on the occasion of his next visit to the United States of America, he


will take the opportunity of representing the views of British shipping interests on the subject of flags of convenience and flag discrimination and request President Kennedy's intervention in the matter.

The Prime Minister: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will not expect me to speculate publicly about the probable course of my confidential talks with the President of the United States. I can assure him, however, that the interests of British shipping will continue to receive the constant attention of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Shinwell: Does the Prime Minister realise the plight of British shipping, the depression which exists, and the discontent amongst the members of the shipping fraternity? In view of the failure of the Minister of Transport, for which he may not bear a great deal of responsibility to find a solution to this great problem, will the Prime Minister take the matter in hand himself?

The Prime Minister: The Government are giving very careful attention to this problem. We have the benefit of a report by the shipping industry itself, and we are studying these matters closely. The Question asks if I will personally discuss this. I will certainly bear in mind the right hon. Gentleman's proposition, although he will not ask me—for it would lead to a series of questions—to bind myself to an agenda.

Mr. P. Williams: Whilst the Government must obviously give consideration to these extremely weighty matters affecting the economic prosperity of this country and the Commonwealth, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend is aware that there is very considerable and deep feeling on both sides of the House and in the industry that the Government are at this moment not giving a sufficiently dynamic lead to the shipping industry and that what is needed now is no longer consideration but action?

The Prime Minister: Those are very easy words to say, but there are very difficult problems to solve.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER AND DR. ADENAUER

Mr. Bowles: asked the Prime Minister on what date he communicated with Dr. Adenauer concerning his recent talks with President de Gaulle.

The Prime Minister: The personal messages that I may from time to time exchange with other Heads of Government are normally confidential, and I prefer not to reveal any details about them.

Mr. Bowles: The Prime Minister seems to be very cynical. He refuses to tell the House of Commons and the British people what he communicates to Dr. Adenauer. Does it not strike him as rather extraordinary that we should be left out and not given information which he gives to the Germans?

The Prime Minister: No. The habit of interchange between Heads of friendly Governments may be a good or a bad thing. Some people may think that we should work entirely upon the old-fashioned diplomatic note. However, we have instituted the system of interchange between Heads of Governments and its whole basis is that such communications should be regarded as personal and private.

Mr. Healey: While not pressing the Prime Minister on the content of these communications, may I ask him whether Dr. Adenauer has reciprocated his courtesy by giving the Prime Minister a report of his conversations with General de Gaulle?

The Prime Minister: I am not prepared to comment on this at all.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISARMAMENT

Mr. Healey: asked the Prime Minister if he will appoint a Minister for Disarmament.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) on 30th June last.

Mr. Healey: We recognise the devoted work done in the field of disarmament by members of the Foreign Office, but the Prime Minister must be aware that in many respects the policy of the Ministry of Defence runs counter to the policy of the Foreign Office on disarmament. He will be aware that some years ago when the Russians accepted a Foreign Office plan for disarmament the Chiefs of Staff promptly vetoed it. Would it


not be a good idea to set up a special agency with powers in both Departments so as to ensure that disarmament takes the priority it deserves?

The Prime Minister: No. I do not
accept the implications of the last part of the supplementary question. This is, after all, one of the main fundamental responsibilities of the Foreign Secretary and I do not think that to appoint another Minister would help things on.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL COMMISSION ON THE PRESS

Mr. Donnelly: asked the Prime Minister whether he is in a position to announce the names of the Royal Commission on the Press.

Mr. Mayhew: asked the Prime Minister if he will now announce the names of the members of the Royal Commission on the Press.

The Prime Minister: I hope to be able to do so soon.

Mr. Donnelly: Is the Prime Minister aware, first, that in today's Press the name of Lord Shawcross has been suggested as a possible chairman? With all due respect to Lord Shawcross, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the noble Lord is leaving for the United States of America for a long trip? Can anything be done to expedite the meeting of the Royal Commission to get on with this job?
Secondly, in considering the hearing of evidence, will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Royal Commission to look into the comparative costs of production and sale of newspapers as between other countries and this country?

The Prime Minister: On the first part of the supplementary question, the hon. Gentleman would not expect me to comment on speculative reports in the Press. On the second part, he has mentioned this fact and it will no doubt be brought to the attention of the Commission.

Mr. Mayhew: Has the Prime Minister seen that the National Union of

Journalists has added its weight to the enormous opposition to the going through of the proposed merger between Odhams and the Daily Mirror group? Is he still insisting, not very convincingly, on taking no part in this and doing nothing whatever to discourage it?

The Prime Minister: I think we had this out at some length on Thursday, 9th February, and I would not move from the position which I then took.

Mr. Gaitskell: First, has the Prime Minister decided how many members the Royal Commission is to have? Secondly, will he consider inviting the members to produce an interim report if this seems to them to be desirable in the interests of preventing further amalgamations?

The Prime Minister: I am considering the first part, and I will certainly consider the second.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Will the Prime Minister assure us that he is not asking Mr. Roy Thomson to represent Scotland?

The Prime Minister: I can think of worthier representatives.

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Prime Minister how long he anticipates it will be before the Royal Commission on the Press presents its report.

The Prime Minister: I would prefer not to hazard a guess.

Mr. Allaun: As it will clearly be weeks, if not months, before the report is presented, by which time the damage will have been done, will the Prime Minister take another look at the proposal, which is now backed by 30,000 workers at Odhams and the Daily Mirror, that the parties to the deal be asked to hold off pending the report and that, if they ignore this request, any subsequent legislation should be retrospective?

The Prime Minister: I tried the other day to state the reasons why I thought that this was dangerous for the Government and very likely would be quite contrary to the interests of the parties whom the hon. Gentleman wishes to protect.

TIMOTHY JOHN EVANS

Mr. Charles Pannell: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the transfer to his next-of-kin of the remains of Timothy John Evans.
I do not think that the case of Timothy John Evans is now a matter for any more judicial inquiry. I think that it is a matter now for the House of Commons. If I may say so, with respect, I do not think that it is for us to consider now the advice which the Home Secretary can give to the Monarch. It is no part of a back bencher's duty here to interfere between the Home Secretary and the Monarch in a matter on which his particular advice is needed. I think that I should outrage certain principles of Government policy if I were to suggest bringing in an indemnity Bill in the case of Evans.
What I am asking the House to do is to agree that the remains of Timothy John Evans should be transferred to his next-of-kin. If the House does that, it will then concur in the view which we hold that Timothy John Evans was wrongly convicted and, in effect, the House will be saying that he should not have been buried in a felon's grave. We shall transfer his remains to his parents for Christian burial.
The fact is that Timothy John Evans was sentenced for the murder of his child in 1950. We know now that—[Interruption.] I should have thought that it would at least have been appreciated that I am discussing a matter concerning the dead. We now know things which, if they had been in the mind of the jury in 1950, would have meant that Timothy John Evans would never have been so sentenced. Lord Birkett—who is a far more experienced criminal lawyer and probably a better judge than the present Lord Chancellor—has gone on record as saying:
If the facts as they are now known had been known in 1950, no jury could possibly have said that the case against Evans was proved beyond all reasonable doubt.
We now know that, four years later, John Christie was to stand trial, and we know also that at the time when Evans was sentenced there were within the

precincts of the same house the bodies of two women undoubtedly murdered by Christie. We know that Christie was a necrophile and that all his victims were subjected to the same treatment—a ligature round the neck and sexual interference after death. We know that this happened to Mrs. Evans and, of course, it would have been completely inconsistent to allege that her husband had done it to her.
We know now that it would have been stretching the bounds of possibility to suggest that there must have been two stranglers, both necrophiles, about in the same house at the same time. The area of reasonable doubt now is so wide that it cannot possibly support the Lord Chancellor's opinion that any suggestion that an innocent person could be hanged in this country is quite fantastic.
One of the sponsors of my Bill, at his own request, is my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), who was Home Secretary at the time. He will allow me to say that, if he had known then what he knows now, even after the Court of Criminal Appeal had rejected Evans' appeal, he would have stopped the execution.
We know now, of course, that the Scott Henderson Report had become worthless. It was asked for by a previous Home Secretary in terms which did not give Mr. Scott Henderson any chance at all. The time was far too short. It was rushed for a debate in Parliament. No one who has studied the subject at all and who has read the debate can read the Scott Henderson Report without a measure of cynicism and without a great deal of sympathy for Mr. Scott Henderson himself. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend has no sympathy for lawyers. I have. A great many of them are mistaken from time to time. I have a great deal of sympathy for anyone rushed into attempting to make a report of that sort.
In 1956, when I was in the United States, I discussed with a judge of the Supreme Court the question whether our method of execution was better than the American method. He thought that we hanged murderers too quickly. I suggested that the Americans probably despatched them too slowly, thinking then


of the Rosenberg case. Since then, of course, we have heard of the Chessman case. His reply was, "There is something awfully final about death, and at least under the American system we procrastinate only at the request of the defence", and he added this significant remark, "One of these days, a case will catch up on you". I think that that case has caught up on us now.
What reparation can we make? I think that we can make very little except that we can say that we were mistaken. The majesty of British justice is based not upon its infallibility, but upon the belief that, when it is found that the processes of law have gone wrong, we admit the mistake. Indeed, our civilisation depends not on what we do about such matters as the hydrogen bomb, defence and war, but upon the way we treat the weak, the unfortunate, and those who cannot hit back.
I say, too, that when we have looked at all the evidence in the case, we have a right and duty to express the humility of the House and say, as I hope we shall say through my proposed Bill, that we admit that we were mistaken. Let us say that we will restore the remains of Timothy John Evans to his family, who are Catholics and who want Christian burial. Let us, on this occasion, remember the words of the poet:

The Chaplain will not kneel to pray
By his dishonoured grave:
Nor mark it with that Cross
That Christ for sinners gave,
Because the man was one of those
Whom Christ came down to save.
I say that Timothy John Evans was judicially killed in 1950—that he was wrongly killed. That no jury would conviot now is clear beyond a peradventure. It is not now for the lawyers to go into the matter again, but for this House, in its own common sense, to say that this is another matter which should be expunged from the record. I ask the House to say that Evans's remains should be returned to those who loved him most in his lifetime as a belated apology for the terrible tragedy which occurred as a result of judicial processes honestly pursued having led to the wrong conclusion.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. C. Pannell, Miss Bacon, Mr. Boyden, Mr. Ede, Mr. C. Hughes, Mr. Mellish, Mr. Redhead, and Mr. S. Silverman.

TIMOTHY JOHN EVANS

Bill to provide for the transfer to his next-of-kin of the remains of Timothy John Evans, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 24th February, and to be printed. [Bill 74.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

4TH ALLOTTED DAY

Order for Committee read.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair.—[Mr. Redmayne.]

ADMIRALTY HEADQUARTERS ORGANISATION

3.40 p.m.

Mr. Robert Carr: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
this House takes note of the First Report from the Select Committee on Estimates in the last Session of Parliament relating to the Admiralty Headquarters Organisation, and of the Third Special Report of the Estimates Committee.
When the Report of the Select Committee on Estimates was published some months ago, it received a certain amount of publicity—I almost said notoriety—in the Press. Among the headlines about it which appeared such incongruous phrases as "broadsides" and "bath-chairs" were prominent. I hope to make it clear in my speech that some of the publicity which the Report received put our recommendations somewhat out of context.
Before coming to the substance of the Report, I am sure that the House would wish me to take the opportunity of putting on record our thanks to the witnesses, both civilian and naval, who gave evidence to the Committee with such patience and thoroughness. I should also like, without any patronising air, to pay tribute on behalf of the Committee to the quality of the men serving the Royal Navy, both on the Service side and on the civilian side, and to make clear that any criticisms we made were directed against the system and not in the slightest degree against the individuals operating it.
Another thing that I should like to do by way of introduction is to express our thanks and congratulations to the Departments concerned on the speed

with which the Committee's recommendations were considered and the reply to them presented to the Committee and thence to the House. This reply was published within eight weeks of the Report. I believe that this is easily a record and we should like to render our thanks and pay tribute to the work which went into the consideration and preparation of the reply so quickly.
Finally, by way of introduction, I am sure that the Estimates Committee and all hon. Members would wish me to refer to the news, which is now public, of the imminent retirement of Sir John Lang, the Permanent Secretary to the Admiralty, who was the principal witness before our Committee. I feel that the House would like to wish him well in his retirement and to pay tribute to the exceptional, indeed unique, service which he has given to the Navy for such a long time—I believe something in excess of fifty years.
Our Report was a critical one and I should like to deploy some of our criticisms to the House. First, I think that I should make clear that the Committee was concerned with two separate questions—first, the size, cost and composition of Admiralty headquarters, and, secondly, the effectiveness of headquarters' control over all naval expenditure for which it is responsible. In judging the second purpose, it is important to remember that, whereas the cost of the headquarters at the moment is about £11 million a year, to total naval expenditure for which it is responsible is about £400 million a year. Therefore, we should not be too pernickety about the headquarters if we can be satisfied that the control which it is exercising over this vast sum of £400 million is adequate. I should like that point to be borne in mind.
I wish to deal in rather broad outline with some of the points, both in the Committee's Report and in the Department's reply, which seem to be of major importance. I hope that other hon. Gentlemen, both those who were members of the Estimates Committee and those who were not, will have the chance to go into some of these points in more detail and to raise different ones which I fail to mention.
The first point with which I want to deal is the over-all size and cost of Admiralty headquarters. In 1952–53, the


cost was a little over £7¼ million. By 1960–61, it had risen to nearly £11 million. I submit that this is an alarming increase which should cause serious concern. That concern is not made any less when one considers the changes which have occurred in the same period in the size of the fleet and in the numbers employed in headquarters.
In round figures, the size of headquarters during this period has fallen from 11,500 to 10,200. The number of ships in the operational fleet has fallen from 376 to 235. The Vote A complement of the Navy has fallen in this period from 153,000 to 102,000 men. In other words, there has been a reduction in the size of the operational fleet of approximately 37 per cent. and a reduction in the Vote A complement of over 30 per cent. but a reduction in the headquarters complement of only approximately 12 per cent.
This comparison is even more disturbing when one looks below the surface. While the size of headquarters has gone down to some extent, the cost of it has risen by about 50 per cent. This cannot but give rise to the suspicion that the reduction in numbers which has been achieved has been too much confined to the lowest grades. This suspicion was confirmed by much of the evidence received by the Committee—for example, the evidence relating to Naval Store Department and the Secretariat referred to in paragraph 13 of the Report.
The second reason why these figures are even more disturbing when one looks below the surface is that the trend in falling numbers has been reversed in the current year. The total headquarters staff for 1960–61 is about 30 more than it was in 1959–60. Of that increase, about 25 represents an increase in the number of naval officers.
The Committee was told that it was the complexity of design of modern ships and weapons and the speed of technical change which were the main causes for the size of headquarters. We willingly accepted that there was considerable substance in that argument. We also accepted, and were careful to show in our Report, that the comparison between the size of headquarters and the number of ships in the fleet should not be pushed too far. Furthermore, we

recognised and gave the Admiralty credit for the reforms which have been effected in recent years. As paragraph 42 of the Report states:
… there has been a serious and sustained endeavour to improve the central organisation.
Nevertheless, having tried to make every possible allowance for all these factors, the Committee still came to the conclusion that the headquarters numbers could, and should, have been reduced more than they have in recent years. We were assured that the slight increase this year was not the beginning of a new trend and that we could expect the reduction in numbers to be resumed in the future. We certainly believe that should be the case. We also believe that this continuing reduction should be a substantial one.
I would like to ask my hon. Friend the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, when he replies to the debate, to give the House, if he can, a positive assurance that such reductions will be made. I should also like to ask him whether it is possible to fix a target now for these reductions which we can look forward to for. say, the next three or five years. Whatever allowances are made we could not avoid coming to the conclusion that the present size of headquarters was too large.
The second point I want to draw to the attention of the House is the proportion of naval officers within the headquarters total.

Sir John Maitland: To make the matter clearer, would my hon. Friend tell the House how much the increase in cost is due to the increased salaries which are now paid to headquarters staff?

Mr. Carr: I cannot say, "off the cuff", the exact amount, but it is a substantial matter. As I said, it is amplified by the fact that the reductions, where they have occurred, have occurred to a considerable extent at the lower end of the scale. We feel that there is rather too high a proportion of higher-paid people in headquarters.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: The hon. Member has said that he is in favour of a reduction of expenditure on headquarters staff. Is he also in favour of a reduction in the total expenditure of the Admiralty?

Mr. Carr: That is a very interesting subject, but if I started to debate it I should go well outside the terms of reference of the Report which is before the House today.
Returning to the proportion of naval officers in the headquarters total, I point out to the House that in 1952–53 there were 755 naval officers at headquarters out of a total strength of 11,502. By 1960–61, there were 779 naval officers at headquarters out of a total strength of 10,179. In other words, while the total at headquarters was being reduced the number of naval officers was actually going up, both absolutely and proportionately. This led the Committee to recommend that there should be a definite policy of civilianisation laid down by the Admiralty and that the Permanent Secretary should be given stronger control over headquarters numbers.
On the question of civilianisation, the Admiralty's reply is a somewhat qualified acceptance of our recommendation, implying that that is what they have been doing for a long time. They quote as an example, to support that contention, that in the last year a decision has been taken to convert a number of posts to civilian appointments. I cannot help pointing out to the House that, in spite of the contention that it has been Admiralty policy for a long time, the fact remains that the number of naval officers at headquarters has increased

Mr. E. Shinwell: To what extent has the number of officers and other ratings at headquarters been inflated by the undertaking, which the Admiralty accepted some years ago, to make itself responsible for shipbuilding activities? I now understand that shipbuilding activities have been transferred to the Ministry of Transport. Is that likely to affect the situation?

Mr. Carr: It is difficult to put figures on the reason for these changes. No doubt the House will wish to hear more on these points from the Civil Lord. These changes of policy must have affected the number of officers. Also, the running down in the size of the Navy must have affected the number of officers.
The House will wish to support the Admiralty in anything that is required to give proper security of career structure to those who have volunteered to

give their lives to service in the Navy. Much of the shipbuilding activity should have resulted in an increase more on the civilian side if any increase was necessary than on the naval side. I may have misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman's point, because I see he is shaking his head. Whatever may be the reason for what has happened in the past it has not altered our view as to the recommendations of what should happen in the future.
When it comes to the recommendation we made about the Permanent Secretary's control of naval officers at headquarters, there is a definite conflict between the Admiralty's reply and the evidence which was given to the Committee. The reply states:
The Permanent Secretary's authority applies without distinction to consideration of naval and civilian posts at headquarters".
That contradicts the evidence in which the Permanent Secretary admitted that his establishment officers did not have—
… quite as large a control over Service numbers as over civilian numbers",
and that
… over civilian numbers his fiat stands … with the naval officer it is a little bit the other way. We have to make sure we can carry the particular member of the Board with us every time.
I have said enough to show the Admiralty's reply does contradict the evidence I have quoted. I would ask my hon. Friend the Civil Lord to clear up this contradiction for us and to give us an assurance that the responsibility for the control of numbers at headquarters will be clear and undivided and without distinction as between naval and civilian staff.
Turning to the third point, which is closely related to the last one, namely, the proportion of headquarters staff at higher salary levels. The Committee found it very noticeable that there was a considerable number particularly of naval personnel in Departments costing in salaries and allowances between £2,000 and £3,000 a year each. We do not, of course, question for one moment the Tightness of the salaries and allowances paid to officers of any given rank. What we do question is the necessity of having so many high-ranking officers in headquarters departments.
I have also already pointed to the fact that a large proportion of the reduction


which has been made in recent years have been at the lower levels and for these reasons the Committee recommended that the Admiralty should undertake a detailed and critical review of the chain of command and the definition of all posts, both civilian and naval, where the salaries, including allowances, exceed £1,500 per year.
I am glad to note that in its reply the Board of Admiralty accepts the importance of the principle underlying this recommendation. I am also glad to note that it quotes examples of action which has already been taken and that it will consult with the Treasury about what further might be done.
I cannot help noting, however, that the Board states in its reply that any inquiry would almost certainly have to concentrate initially on posts from £2,500 a year and upwards. I think that this may be reasonable as a first step, but I should like an assurance from the Civil Lord that this inquiry will be pressed seriously and that it will eventually be taken down to the lower salary level recommended by the Committee.
It seemed to us that what is needed is the sort of management audit commonly undertaken by industrial consultants when conducting an inquiry into the administration of an industrial company. They come in and they expect every executive, from the managing director down to a quite low level, to commit himself on paper to his own ideas of his responsibilities and duties. Those records of people's views of their responsibilities are carefully compared, analysed and pruned. It is a matter of experience that when such a process is followed considerable savings in a number of higher posts can usually be made. It is that sort of process which the Committee is pressing upon the Admiralty.
The fourth point to which I should like to draw attention is the use made by the Admiralty of organisation and methods techniques. The Select Committee felt that this was one of the most important ways open to the Admiralty of controlling the efficiency and size of headquarters. We felt that the present size of the O. & M. Department, consisting of only 21 people, was inadequate for the tasks involved in such a huge organisation.
We also believed that the experience of the staff, their length of service in this work and the terms of reference given to the Department, all needed strengthening. We are glad to note that this recommendation has been accepted, but I should like my hon. Friend the Civil Lord to tell us in somewhat more specific terms today what action is being taken to implement this recommendation.
In doing that, I should like to stress once again the importance not only of increasing the size of the O. & M. Department, but also of strengthening in the minds of what I might call the top management throughout the Admiralty the rô le which the O. & M. Department should play in the streamlining of operations and, therefore, reducing the numbers of headquarters staff. Experience in industry has shown clearly that vigorous use of work measurement and method study can produce dramatic economies, not only in production processes on the factory floor, but also in administration. We believe that the full use of these techniques should have such an effect in the Admiralty as well as in other headquarters.
I turn now to the second question which concerned the Committee's inquiry, namely, the effectiveness of Admiralty headquarters in controlling the whole £400 million of naval expenditure. The Public Accounts Committee has often drawn attention to the way in which the final cost of projects tends to exceed by large amounts the estimated cost on which the original decision to proceed was taken. I am sorry to say that in making this inquiry the Estimates Committee was also considerably perturbed by figures which we were given, but which could not be published for security reasons, regarding the estimated and final costs of certain new and current projects. We could not help concluding that control over expenditure of this kind was not as effective as the taxpayer has the right to demand.
I should like to mention three factors which the Committee considered particularly important in that connection. The first is the use of cost accounting techniques. We recommended in the Report that the Admiralty should undertake a further review of the central costing machinery and should consider the


establishment of a separate costings branch in the Secretariat. We are glad that that recommendation has been accepted and that the central costing unit will be increased
to whatever extent may be necessary to meet the demands for its services".
The words which I have just quoted could mean a lot, or they could mean very little. I should like to press my hon. Friend the Civil Lord to make that reply somewhat more specific, because the demand for the services of cost accounting should, in the opinion of the Committee, be imposed from the top and not simply left to grow by chance. The evidence that we were given showed that although the small costings section in General Finance Branch I of the Secretariat had been doubled—the fact that something has been doubled sounds impressive—even after it is doubled, it still numbers only four or five people. This seems to us to be inadequate.
The other two factors affecting overall control to which I should like to refer are the tour off duty of senior naval officers at headquarters coupled with the effect produced by the division of headquarters between London and Bath. The Committee expressed the opinion that the essential weaknesses of the present Admiralty headquarters organisation had escaped the many inquiries which have been made into it in recent years. It seemed to us that the most conspicuous weaknesses were, first, the practice of naval officers serving only a two-year term at headquarters and, secondly, the division between London and Bath.
The present position is that the Navy's requirements in terms of ships, weapons, and so on, are defined by the staff divisions in London. These staff divisions are, naturally and properly, headed by naval officers, but these naval officers usually spend no more than two years in their posts. That is the specification of requirements side.
Those requirements as laid down by the naval staff divisions are converted into ships and weapons by the departments, as they are called, some of which may be headed by civilians who spend considerable periods in their posts but others of whom may be, and are, headed by naval officers who, like their counterparts in the staff divisions, stay in their posts for an average of only two years.
How can one possibly achieve continuity of control and speed and efficiency of execution when the senior people, both on the staff side and on the production side, are being changed with this rapidity?
This situation, moreover, is greatly aggravated by the division between London and Bath. Evidence was given to the Sub-Committee that senior officers in charge of departments in Bath were often having to visit London two or three times a week. How can Departments have the strength of direction and control which is required when their most senior staff change every two years and when, during that short period of two years, they are often away from their Departments in London as often and for as long a time as this?
Therefore, while the Committee recognised the need for the experience of serving naval officers within these production departments, it felt that as far as possible this naval officer experience ought not to be injected in the top management positions in each department—those should, as far as possible, be in the hands of civilians—and that where it is essential that the most senior executives in a department should be serving officers, they should be in their posts for considerably longer than the present period.
We could not help noticing that the Select Committee on Estimates made this very same recommendation in 1929 and that no action was taken upon it by the Admiralty. It is true that the Committee was informed that the matter was once again under review. I can only say that we would wish to stress strongly that the Committee regarded this matter as one of outstanding importance which required immediate consideration and action.
A great deal was made in the Press of the Committee's recommendation on the subject of the Admiralty establishment at Bath. We were not primarily concerned about the day-to-day costs of this separation, although, of course, that is serious and we quoted the figures of travelling expenses and the like as an illustration of what was involved. What principally concerned us, as we stated in paragraph 17 of the Report, is the "waste of time, energy and efficiency"


which this involves and to which I have just referred in detail. This point was conceded by the Admiralty in evidence and also in its reply.
The argument about the cost of bringing the Bath establishment back to London is irrelevant. If one reads the Committee's Report, it will be seen that we never made this suggestion. Indeed, we recognise that there are undeniable advantages in having part of the organisation outside London, but what concerned us was that this separation between London and Bath took place in an emergency as a temporary measure, just over twenty years ago. We felt that the time had come when this had to be seriously re-examined and that if it is decided that it is no longer an emergency and a temporary measure but, taking all in all, it is right and necessary to make this location permanent, then the organisation must be adapted to take this into account. This is as much in the interests of the individual officers concerned as it is in the interest of the overall efficiency of the organisation.
I hope that the House will feel that in this inquiry the Select Committee on Estimates did its job responsibly. We realise that we made strong criticisms of a system worked by men for whom we could not have but the highest possible regard, but we believe that these criticisms are fair and substantial. We also gave praise. We are sorry, but perhaps it is in the nature of things that it is always the criticism rather than the praise that receives publicity. But I assure the House and all outside it who are concerned with the Navy that the only purpose that motivated us was the well-being of the Navy.
Noble traditions must be jealously preserved and, certainly, the Navy is rich in them, but tradition, and still more habit, must not be allowed to become the enemy of change. That was our concern and, as we said in our Report:
A headquarters which is closely integrated—which exercises strong control over expenditure and which is capable of a rapid transaction of business is as much in the interest of the Royal Navy as that of the public revenue.

4.12 p.m.

Commander Harry Pursey: The Select Committee on Estimates deserves the commendation

of the House for this first Report and also the Admiralty for providing the information, even though it was like getting butter out of a dog's mouth to try to obtain it. That is as far as my commendation goes today for the Admiralty, but I join the hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) in saying that we all appreciate the work of the officers at the Admiralty, both naval and civilian, as well as those of the Navy.
Hon. Members who were members of the Select Committee will obviously deal with the most important points, as the hon. Member for Mitcham has already done. Therefore it behoves me to get further into the Report by virtue of my thirty years' experience in the Service. This debate, and this inquiry into the Admiralty, must be considered in the light of two important factors. One, as the hon. Member has said, is the current Estimate of about £400 million. The second is the number of ships in the Navy today, which is only about half what it was in its heyday in 1914 and in 1939. In the case of some ships the number is much less than half and, of course, there are no battleships at all.
The trouble with the Admiralty is that it has grown up on the basis of "Parkinson's Law"—that every new department must be equal to every old department and every head of a department must have a deputy and an assistant and every head must be an admiral or as near to that rank as possible so that the deputy and assistant, in turn, shall be as senior as possible. The result is that when we had a big navy, heads of branches were only captains or in some cases commanders, but today they are all largely admirals. I hope to give some examples of this later.
The first Lord of the Admiralty should be known as "Lord Parkinson", but to have any success in cutting down the Estimates by millions of pounds he ought to be the present Minister of Health. There are two ways of cutting down the vast personnel and the cost in the Navy and at the Admiralty. The first is vertically, by a reduction of numbers. The second is horizontally, by the abolition or combination of jobs. This will not be done until the Government decide to cut the Navy by a fixed percentage.
say 10 per cent., which would save £40 million.
The present Government, however, would never do that, because they have their priorities all wrong. Tory policy is to save shillings on prescriptions for poor people's medicines while hundreds of millions of pounds are being spent unnecessarily on armaments. Practically all the naval money is spent at the Admiralty. The Prime Minister should appoint the present Minister of Health as First Lord with as free a hand to make cuts as he now has with the National Health Service.

Commander J. S. Kerens: rose —

Commander Pursey: We have not been going very long. You will get your opportunity, no doubt, very shortly and I hope that your contribution

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must require the hon. and gallant Member to address his remarks to the Chair.

Commander Pursey: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker, but I am certain that the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for The Hartlepools (Commander Kerans) will sound better in his own speech than in mine.
Reductions in the Navy could be considerable. We have had a reduotion in the number of Civil Lords from three to two, but we have had no corresponding reduction in the naval lords. If the Prime Minister wishes to reduce the cost of the Admiralty, the first thing he should do is to reduce the number of admirals from six to five. This will show that he means business, as was the case with the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill), when he became First Lord in a Liberal Government in 1911 and sacked the First Sea Lord.
At one time there was a chief of naval staff, the vice-chief and a deputy chief. The Fifth Sea Lord's job has been combined with that of Deputy Chief of the Naval Staff. Why should not the Second Sea Lord's job be combined with that of the Vice-Chief. The next cut should be on the civilian side, where we have a permanent secretary, a senior civil servant and a member of the Board, and two deputy-secretaries. Why not dispense with one of these deputies? Thus, having started at the top by dispensing

with an admiral and a deputy-secretary, it would be quite easy to go down right through to the bottom. It is no good trying to do it the other way round by dispensing with one matelot, because he has no assistant or deputy or secretary.
Let us consider the number of admirals who are at the Admiralty. The Board consists of two Civil Lords, six admirals and the secretary, a total of nine. Let us consider the ranks of the admirals whom we now have with our present much reduced fleet. The First Sea Lord is an admiral. The Second Sea Lord is a vice-admiral. The Third Sea Lord is an admiral, which is most unusual. The Fourth Sea Lord is a vice-admiral and the Vice-chief is an admiral. The Deputy Chief, who is also the Fifth Sea Lord. is also a vice-admiral.
That makes three admirals and three vice-admirals. In 1914. the heyday of large fleets, the Board only had five flag officers—one admiral, two vice-admirals and two rear-admirals. At the moment, we have a board of nine members, with 31 other officers and civilians attached to it, making a total of 40.
There are four more rear-admirals as deputy chiefs and assistant chiefs, eight captains as secretaries or assistants, and two commanders and two lieutenant-commanders as secretaries. At the end of the list is a lieutenant-commander who is flag lieutenant—which means that he is simply a messenger, or a P.P.S. In addition, there is a civilian staff—a secretary, two deputy secretaries, and seven under-secretaries. All of them are fairly senior. I am dealing with senior grades. The total number of flag officers directly connected with the Admiralty is 10, yet we have only five aircraft carriers and five cruisers. This allows the Navy one admiral for each of these 10 ships from among the flag officers serving at the Board of Admiralty.
That is not the end of the story, however. There are even more admirals at the Admiralty. The Director of Naval Intelligence is a rear-admiral, as are the Hydrographer and the Director of Personal Services. The Director-General of Manpower must be mighty important, because he is a vice-admiral. Then we have the Director of Naval Training—another rear-admiral. That gives us five more admirals, making a total of 15 executive admirals.
There are still more to come, however, in the technical branches—engineering, electrical, secretariat, medical and education. They give us another five. Thus, we have at the Admiralty 20 officers of the rank of rear-admiral or above. That means that we have two each for our aircraft carriers and cruisers in addition to the admirals actually in charge of the squadrons.
I now take two divisions of the Admiralty at random. The first is the Naval Intelligence Division. It has a rear-admiral as director, and two captains and a colonel, Royal Marines, as deputy directors, as well as two captains and a commander as assistant directors. There are also 18 more commanders and three civilians. What is the amount of naval intelligence done today compared with 1914? Today, except for one Navy, all the other navies are our allies and we are sharing information with them, or at least most of it.
Let us take a minor example at the lower end of the scale. In pre-war days the Press department was run very well by a retired commander with the rank of captain and a couple of civilians. Later, a full admiral was given the job—four ranks higher than the previous holder of the office. I suggest that even with today's demand for Press information—I was doing Press correspondence work myself before the war, so I have some idea of it—that job could well be done still by a retired commander with the rank of captain.

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing): That is exactly what the job is being done by.

Commander Pursey: I have the support of the Admiralty in the argument. The Civil Lord's interjection does not rule out the fact that at one time an admiral was doing the job, which confirms my argument about Parkinson's Law.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: indicated dissent.

Commander Pursey: The Civil Lord shakes his head, but it was Admiral Sir William James who held the job. He was at one time a Member of this House, but failed to fight for his constituency at Portsmouth.
I now turn to the Personal Services Department. In 1914, with the great

armada we had then, the senior staff consisted of a captain and commander for the executive branch, and other branches did the appointments. We know the number of pre-war appointments, because they were published in the Press. We do not know them today, but the number of appointments, with the smaller number of officers and ships, must be considerably reduced and there is no justification for the vast increase that has taken place in the appointments department.
Today, with fewer officers to appoint, we have a director-general, who is a rear-admiral, with a captain as his assistant, a naval secretary and a civilian assistant. In addition, there are four other offices, one for each branch of officers—seamen, engineering, secretariat, and electrical.
The seamen's branch office has a captain and three commanders; the engineering branch has a captain and four commanders; in addition, there is a captain and three commanders in the planning, mobilisation, interview, and employment liaison sections. Even that, however, is not the whole story of this Department, for there are two more captains and eight commanders in the Service Conditions and Fleet Supply Divisions.
Without debate, I at once admit the importance of personnel, but I suggest that so many appointments to run this department is crazy. What is needed is a check to see what all these people are doing, what is in their in-trays and what is in their out-trays, and whether today they are simply passing valentines to one another.
The Second Sea Lord's Department is responsible for ratings. In my time at Devonport there was only one small office with a couple of chief writers and three or four writers with a "crusher"—that is, a ship's corporal—who had charge of a draft when it assembled. I know that, for I was the messenger. It worked well and there was little or no complaint. The depot card number gave the clue as to when it became one's turn to go to sea, either at home or abroad
What has happened? We see a typical example of mechanisation. The Second Sea Lord's Department now has a common pool for all depots and all


ratings, complete with mechanisation. It must be rather like Littlewood's pools. The reason is supposed to be to ensure fair play for the ratings. That may be all right up to a point, but it gets difficult when ships are transferred from one station to another, or when the Tory Government have a Suez war and ships have to be transferred from one station to another and people taken from shore service in barracks. This mechanisation requires serious inquiry to see whether it is justified either from the point of view of a common pool or equipment, or whether it would not be better to have smaller numbers and more branches and revert to the old scheme of drafting from local depots.
What we did not want in my time was the Admiralty planning, because the Admiralty always upset things. In 1908, the battleship "Implacable" was in the Mediterranean with a Devonport crew. It was obvious that she should be replaced by a ship with a Devonport crew, and it may be thought that that would have been easy. In fact, the "Implacable" was brought home to Devonport and a nucleus crew from the "Hannibal", of which I was one, was transferred to the "Implacable" to take her to Chatham and to commission the "Ocean". We had West Country people in a "foreign" land just before they went on foreign service and the punishment book showed the results. Many men started with a blot on their copybook which they would not have had if the ship had gone straight out from Devonport.
One of the problems in this administration is that the unnecessarily high figures of staff and cost will never be reduced until the vast tidal wave of forms, reports and correspondence from ships is reduced by half. There are far too many forms and many could be scrubbed out. After all the years we have had a Navy, it would still go on ticking over without half of the forms. Everybody wants to write something and nobody wants to stop it.
Moreover, such reports, like Members' speeches, are too long, but our speeches are only an occasional indulgence whereas the tidal waves of correspondence received at the Admiralty are unending. I revised the organisation of three ships—a battleship, a battle cruiser and an aircraft carrier—and I have some idea of naval officers' writings.
Let us take the evolution, "Out collision mat". All that is required is four pieces of string and a mat. The way to do it is in the seamanship book, but instead of that the commander wants to write it out fully in his general drill book. All that is required is, "Forecastle men: foremost fore and after" in one line—forecastle having the initials F.X. Then the after fore and after, the bottom line and the lowering line where all that is required is the Marines, the Navy's bullocks, for the mat. It can be done in four lines and it does not require four pages. That is typical of the correspondence which goes on.
One of the failings of the Admiralty is that it does not trust its own establishments and its own documents. I was educated at Greenwich school, the Navy's orphanage. When I was due to join the Navy there arose the question of taking the advanced class examination—the classes being conducted at Devonport. Although the school was under the control of the Civil Lord, those of us who were to take the examination were not allowed to take it at Greenwich. We had to be sent to Shotley, in Suffolk, to take the examination and to spend a week there and then be transferred to the wooden walled "Impregnable" at Devonport.
I will give an example of a form. When I joined the Navy, in 1907, a return of "seamen unable to read and write" was still being sent in from ships and the Admiralty was quite happy to receive it. The press gangs had failed for the Crimean and Baltic wars of 1854 and the chances are that that form had been established along with continuous service in 1856 and had gone on for more than fifty years, in the same way that pay had remained stagnant.
Yet for several years it had been part of the entry conditions for ratings to be tested on reading and writing. However, the Navy did not trust the entry staff and wanted to continue the form as a check. Presumably, whoever was receiving those forms was hoping that one day there would be found a man who could not read or write and who would then be presented with a medal.
On one ship in which I served there was an officer who, when he received a difficult letter, put it in the "wait" basket and left it there. His argument


was that it might be forgotten and that is no one asked for it, it would not matter. Fortunately, when a ship pays off there is a chance to burn all the ship records, except those special records which have to be sent in, and I have helped to burn a great deal. Unfortunately, the tide continues at the Admiralty and more and more storage space and accommodation are required.
It is argued that today ships are more complicated and it is more difficult to deal with their equipment and with experiments and trials, and so on, as if that were not so previously. That argument does not give the full picture. When I joined the Navy, there was no radio and we were experimenting with wireless telegraphy, fire control, gyro-compasses, electric turrets, the first aircraft, coal and oil fuels, and so on, and I remember the difficulty with battle cruisers' electric turrets.
What is the good of saying that all this extra difficulty is due to new development, trial and experiment. Admittedly, the work is now much greater and there are more detailed technicalities, but the ability of officers and men has increased to deal with it and the increase must also be offset by the fact that we now have only half the number of ships. In those days we had only voice pipes for communications and when the officer said to the rating down below, "Who is the blank fool down there?" the rating still had the right to say, "Not on this end, Sir".
Now let us take a specific form, that applying for a sailor's good conduct medal. What happens when an able seaman becomes entitled to a good conduct medal? Where does the application go? Does it go from the ship to the depot and from the depot to the Admiralty, and, if so, where and how?
Every man has a parchment service certificate on which is his record. All that is required is fifteen years of good conduct and his parchment certificate shows that. He put in a request to see the captain; why cannot the Admiralty document be accepted and the medal issued instead of there being this circumlocution? It ought to be easy to issue a medal and the only thing which is required is to have the man's number and name stamped on it. I am all for

good conduct medals and it is to be hoped that not too many officers will be flippant when presenting a medal and, instead of saying that it is for fifteen years of good conduct, saying that it is for fifteen years of undiscovered crime.
There is a short point which I hope other hon. Members will take up. With the upgrading of officers, much work has been taken from chief and petty officers. The chief petty officer is the flag officer of the lower deck. He is at the end of twenty years' service. He is the sergeant-major carrying the officers along. Whereas, in my day, it was a petty officers' Navy, it is now an officers' Navy, with officers largely doing the work formerly done by petty officers.
There will be no serious reductions by millions of pounds in the Navy Estimates and the Admiralty Vote until the House accepts an Amendment to reduce the Vote by a definite proportion. The whole structure of the Navy and the Admiralty should be investigated by an outside "Geddes Axe" committee. Until this is done we will continue unnecessarily throwing away millions of pounds which ought instead to be spent on housing, old age pensions and health and education services to improve the standard of life for children, poor people and the aged who are still very much in need.

4.40 p.m.

Vice-Admiral John Hughes Hallett: I thought that a good deal of the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Commander Pursey) was directed to criticisms of what happened about fifty years ago, but he did make one reference, an inaccurate reference, to my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) having "fired" the First Sea Lord when he first went as First Lord of the Admiralty, in 1911 I think it was.
What actually happened is very much more relevant to the subject matter of this debate. Mr. Asquith decided that there should be a naval staff built into the Admiralty structure on lines similar to the General Staff, and Mr. McKenna, and Admiral Wilson, the First Sea Lord, rather than accept this, resigned. My right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford went to the Admiralty charged, among other things, with the, task of


building up a naval staff, in which task he was assisted by Prince Louis of Battenburg.
It is interesting to speculate whether we should have been having this debate, and whether my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) would have had to produce a Report on the enormous size of the Admiralty headquarters had that staff never been established. However, it is also fair to add that it is interesting to speculate whether in that case we should have won two wars.
Not for the first time, I think, the House is indebted to my hon. Friend for having produced an extremely valuable and constructive report. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] The rising cost of the Admiralty office has been a matter of concern to a number of us for many years. I myself have referred to it for three successive years in the course of the debate on the Navy Estimates, and in three successive years my hon. Friend the Civil Lord has replied with those soothing and tolerant replies which grown-ups reserve for troublesome children.
It is only fair to say at this stage, as the Select Committee's Report suspects and implies, that the War Office and the Air Ministry are every bit as bad, although a good deal more cunning in concealing the magnitude of their establishments. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Mahon (Mr. Turton) will be able to take action on the first recommendation of the Select Committee, namely, that a similar probe should be held into those two Departments.
The present Report on the Admiralty is an example of a reasoned approach to the problem of reducing the size of a Government Department. I am not so sure that the unreasoned approach is not very often far more effective. I admit that there were occasions on which I succeeded in achieving economies in the establishments which I commanded. It was always done by being arbitrary, unfair, and, indeed, highly unreasonable. One makes the cut, and then sees what happens.
Be that as it may, of the detailed recommendations made, I agree with Recommendation 4, which refers to the power of the Secretary of the Admiralty

in connection with the staffing of the naval departments. I am surprised at the Admiralty's reply, because, whatever the position may be in theory, I am sure that the Permanent Secretary is not able to exercise in practice the same control over the staffing of the naval and technical departments as he is over the Secretariat.
Again, I strongly endorse Recommendations 13 and 14, which refer to the size, and to some extent the constitution, of the naval staff division. As on previous occasions we have been given in the Admiralty reply the old refrain about the increasing complexity of the equipment. That may be a justification, and I think it is, for the growth in size of the departments, but I cannot see that it can be applied to any great extent to the naval staff division.
Staff divisions are supposed to advise on policy. If their numbers are inflated because equipment is becoming more complicated, in my judgment it can only be because staff officers are going beyond their proper task and interfering with technical matters. If we applied the argument about growing complexity to the political field I calculate that we should need more Parliamentary Secretaries than there are hon. Members in the Tory Party. We should have to persuade the Opposition to take some of the jobs as well. That might be agreeable to some hon. Members. It would certainly simplify these debates, but so far we have avoided it, and I cannot see why we should have this tremendous growth in the staff divisions.
My chief reason for intervening is to say a word or two about Recommendations 5 and 6, which refer to the Admiralty establishments at Bath. Here, I agree with Recommendation 6, but I do not agree with Recommendation 5. In my opinion, the ideal at which we should aim should be to reconcentrate the Admiralty in London, having first effected sufficient reductions to make that possible.
The policy of dividing and dispersing Government Departments between London and the provinces is, in my judgment, most inappropriate when applied to Defence Ministries or Defence Departments. It cannot even be justified nowadays by the advantage of dispersal in case of air raids. The invention of the hydrogen bomb has made


Chat argument wholly untenable. Any fighting Service today has to be so organised that it can conduct operations and be administered in time of war without the assistance and guidance of any ministerial headquarters. Nevertheless, we have to take things as they are, and one recognises that the present numbers employed at Bath could not readily be reduced overnight to whatever it would be possible to accommodate in London.
The question really comes down to whether Bath is the best place for them to be, or whether it would pay to move them, as the Select Committee suggests, closer to London. I am certain that any such move would be a mistake, and that it would lead to a greater expenditure of money and to decreased efficiency.
I speak with some experience because I held office for two years as Vice-Controller of the Navy, in which capacity I lived and worked in Bath. Although the Vice-Controller was the senior officer at Bath, of course he was not in charge there. Although the citizens of Bath were rather inclined to regard the Vice-Controller in the same way as they regard the commandant of an establishment, that was not so at all. I remind the House that the Admiralty is a civil establishment, and, like other Government Departments, no one is in charge. After all, those who are the backbone of of the staffing of the Civil Service are the products of public schools and universities, and any such reactionary idea as having some one in definite charge would, I am sure, be viewed with revulsion.
The Vice-Controller merely represented the Controller, who was in London—a point to which I shall return—whereas the bulk of his departments were at Bath, so the task of the Vice-Controller was really to oversee what was going on in these Departments. When I first took up the appointment I went to Bath determined, somehow, to prune the numbers and try to get the departments there exchanged with other departments in London, so that we could all come back to London. I very soon changed my mind, and I believe that the reasons which led me to do so about ten years ago are equally valid today, although there has been some reorganisation of the departments between that day and this. I want to tell the House some of the reasons that

led me to think that matters were best left as they were.
First, the City of Bath has come to depend upon the Admiralty to a considerable extent for its prosperity. This is a human problem, which cannot lightly be disregarded by any good employer, least of all a Government Department. Furthermore, a bond of affection and understanding has gradually grown up between the City of Bath and the Admiralty. This did not exist to such an extent in the early years, but the bond has grown up over the years and is another factor which cannot lightly be disregarded. When I first went there I was surprised to discover the esprit de corps that existed even among quite junior employees—clerical officers, draughtsmen and the like—and the pride they felt in their own departments. This is something which I do not believe is found in a place as large as London, with all respect to the London departments.
I am not sure of the reason. Perhaps it is because competitive sports and games are organised between the various departments in Bath, or because the senior people in Bath tend to be in the local news, which means that the Admiralty is repeatedly referred to in the Press. The Lord Mayor of London occasionally goes to a function unaccompanied by either the First Lord of the Admiralty or the First Sea Lord but. in my time, at any rate, the Mayor of Bath would never have dreamed of attending a civic function without inviting the Vice-Controller to accompany him, and expecting that invitation to be accepted. That has some effect on the general tone of the establishment.
For those reasons I am sure that the removal of the Admiralty departments from Bath would involve a much bigger emotional upset than might at first sight be supposed. It would also cost a great deal of money, not only because of the new buildings required but also because the payment of a disturbance allowance would be involved. When civil servants are moved from one place to another they receive a disturbance allowance. I left Bath thirteen years after the establishment had moved there, and at that time some people were still drawing additional pay because of the disturbance caused to them through having been moved thirteen years before.
A great deal has been made, both in the Report and in discussions in the Press, of the amount of time consumed in travelling to and fro to meetings. The railway service from Bath to London is excellent; it takes one hour and fifty minutes. Even though it may take an hour longer than might be possible if a place nearer London were chosen it would be a mistake to suppose that such a move would involve any saving of Government time. If Bath were nearer to London, or the trains' speed was suddenly doubled, all that would happen would be that the officials would start later and get home sooner. Worse might follow; they would probably think up more meetings to attend.
I have no doubt that too many of these meetings are held. There is a great tendency, particularly on the part of the staff at Bath, to think of a reason for spending a day in London. I can suggest two remedies to the Civil Lord. First—and on this he would have to have the co-operation of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor—he could stop the racket whereby very highly paid officials are able to draw a subsistence allowance to pay for their lunches because they happen to have gone up to London to attend a meeting. I have always felt that that was undesirable and objectionable.
Secondly, he could have properly designed conference equipment, of a telephonic nature. In 1951, when the Korean War was at its height and rearmament began in a big way, the pressure for meetings increased considerably and, with the co-operation of my superiors in London, telephone conference rooms were set up both in Bath and London. The equipment was of a fairly elementary nature and it was tremendously unpopular, but it was used quite a lot. A hundred and one excuses were always found for having a meeting instead, but with modern conditions and modern efficiency long-range conference equipment could be installed and, given an efficient chairman, there is no reason why meetings should not be held between those in Bath and those in London as easily as if the participants were sitting round the same table. For those reasons I would not recommend a move from Bath unless it were back to London.
At the same time, I strongly endorse the Committee's next recommendation, namely, that any given department should be wholly located either in London or in Bath. In practice, that would mean that the Controller's departments would have to be located at Bath in their entirety, and a most important corollary to that is that the Directors—or Directors-General as they now are—should also be at Bath. That is not always so at present. It makes all the difference in the world if the boss is on the spot and is able to oversee the work of his own department. All these remarks apply with even greater force to the Controller of the Navy himself. I consider it quite unjustifiable that, just because the Controller is one of the Sea Lords and has dealings with other Sea Lords, he should be able to make this an excuse for living in London, notwithstanding the fact that the departments for which he is responsible are located in Bath.
There is a simple solution. He can have a home and an office in Bath with a pied-à -terre and a smaller office in the Admiralty building in London, and establish a routine whereby, say, on Tuesday mornings, he leaves Bath and comes to London, returning there after lunch on Thursday. That is not a new idea. I will not disguise the fact that I suggested this when I was at Bath, but I was told that it would involve great hardship. My reply to that argument is, "Rubbish". Nearly all hon. Members spend their lives with a pied-à -terre in London when the House is sitting, from which they can travel each weekend to their constituencies. There is not the slightest reason why these senior and well-paid officials should not have a similar routine.
I now want to consider the underlying causes of this unending tendency of the Admiralty and other Government Departments to continue to grow. The hon. and gallant Member referred to Parkinson's Law. No one will deny the facts cited in the amusing book by Professor Parkinson. No one can doubt the enormous increase that has taken place, and which goes on the whole time, in the growth of headquarters establishments. Yet I question Professor Parkinson's theory as to the primary cause of this expansion. As I understand his


book, he puts it down entirely to the desire and the urge to maintain an adequate promotion structure.
To concede that that is the general cause is tantamount to saying that the whole of our public service is rotten with corruption, and I do not accept that for a moment. I think that the cause is at once more honourable and very much harder to eradicate. I think that it comes from the fact that in the public service in this country increased productivity—if I may use the modern jargon—is always reflected in increased output, in taking on more services, rather than in reducing the establishment.
This, I think, is the basic cause of the trouble. After all, if one considers the simplest case where the productivity of a section or a department goes up on account of the personal efficiency of some man of exceptional ability, zeal and energy, what happens? Mr. Exceptional replaces Mr. Average. A fortnight later he becomes bored, because he can get through his work in an hour a day. Because he is zealous and energetic he does not sit twiddling his thumbs. He thinks of some useful additional service that his section could undertake. He proposes to his director that this could be done without any increase in staff, without any cost, and the director—probably after putting up a certain amount of routine obstruction—agrees to it going forward.
In two years' time it is an established service. The director gets a C.B. instead of the C.B.E. and Mr. Exceptional is moved on to another post and a second Mr. Average replaces him. Within a fortnight he is nearly "round the bend" and he "cannot think how the work was ever got through"—and so forth. The Civil Service knows what to do. The Organisation and Methods Branch is called in and produces a report to the effect that there is work for two men. It is never suggested that the new service should be closed down again. Probably it is not even remembered that there was a new service. Not only is an additional man appointed, but the chances are that it is also pointed out that there is a connection between the two services so that the second Mr. Average can be promoted and have two people to look after the two sides of the work being done.
The ironical part of all this is that it is not the brilliant man who thought up the idea who gets promoted. It is the average man who succeeded him.

Mr. R. T. Paget: Is not the hon. and gallant Gentleman describing Parkinson's second law, which is that work will always expand to fill the time available for it?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: The hon. and learned Gentleman may well be right. I must confess that I have not read Parkinson's second law, but, anyhow, I have held this theory myself for a long time. Indeed, I bored the Standing Committee which discussed the Electricity Bill with the same thesis.
I would put it to the Financial Secretary, who has just entered the Chamber, that the remedy for all this is that the Treasury should insist that sanction should be required for any new service, whether it involves expenditure or not. Until that rule is adopted and enforced the Treasury will never succeed in curbing the steady and remorseless growth of Government Departments of which the Admiralty is only one example.

5.5 p.m.

Mr. E. G. Willis: I was very interested in the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett) and I found myself in agreement with much of what he said. The hon. and gallant Gentleman with other hon. Members has spent a considerable time dealing with the Admiralty Office on various occasions and I think that we have filled quite a number of columns of the OFFICIAL REPORT with our discussions on the subject.
The hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr), who opened the debate, seemed rather apologetic about having to attack the Admiralty. He has no reason to feel apologetic on that score. In my view, we do not examine and attack the Admiralty sufficiently. The result is as we see in this Report, and as hon. Members have pointed out during debates on the Estimates on a number of occasions, that the numbers at the Admiralty never seem to dwindle no matter how small the Navy gets.
The Committee rightly draws attention to the fact that the numbers in the Navy have declined by about 50,000 and


the number of ships has declined, but the numbers at the Admiralty have declined by only 1,400 as between 1952–53 and 1959–60. That is not the whole picture. At the same time, a large number of naval establishments all over the country have been closed down. I do not know the total, but it is considerable. We now have the closing down of Chatham Barracks, as well. In fact, the more one examines the Navy the more one becomes bewildered by this inability of the Admiralty to reduce to any substantial extent the numbers engaged in its offices.
I am one of those who finds it difficult to find his way round the labyrinthine organisation of the Admiralty. When one does succeed in doing that, the organisation is changed. It seems to me there is a sort of constant war going on between the various committees of this House and the Admiralty. The Select Committee on Estimates examines one section of the Admiralty's work and the Public Accounts Committee examines something else. Hon. Members may make various criticisms which sometimes are pertinent and much to the point. But the Admiralty has built itself a kind of shield of committees which are continually engaged in examining its work so that it is rather difficult to follow what is going on in the Admiralty.
As the Civil Lord knows, I have had some experience of trying to track down one department which I saw was increasing considerably in size. Before I knew where I was, the work of that department—or at least what I was told was the work of it—had been changed, and in the end I was, at it were, "fluffed-off". This seems to be what happens. Admiralty Departments have a defence to meet attacks made by hon. Members and by Committees acting on behalf of this House in trying to safeguard the taxpayer's money.
I remember that during one debate on the Estimates we were told by the Financial Secretary—I do not think it was the present Financial Secretary—that the Admiralty had told the commanding officer of an aircraft carrier, "You must do with so many men less". The Admiralty did not ask whether he could, it simply told him that. I suggest during the debate that somebody should say

the same to the Admiralty, that we should not bother to ask the Admiralty whether it could do with so many men less but just say, "Your staff will be cut down to this figure".
If that treatment was good enough for the commanding officer of an aircraft carrier, I do not see why it should not be good enough for the Admiralty. As was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Commander Pursey), this seems to be the only way we shall get anything done, because the techniques of defence which have been developed are such that they are very difficult to penetrate.
I read the recommendations in the Report and the reply of the Admiralty. I have had some experience on the Estimates Committee and of the replies from Departments to its Reports. The tendency is for the reply to be, "Yes, we will do anything which does not require very much effort. We will put a few more figures at the bottom of Vote A, or some other Vote, to tell you what is happening". But whenever we come to recommendations which seem to get to grips with the matter and suggest something be done to reduce numbers, we are faced with pages of explanations why such a course of action would be difficult and the statement that a committee is at present looking into it, or that the matter is being examined. In other words, we are put off. This is the technique. Anyone with any experience of the Estimates Committee knows that this has been developed to a high level.
In connection with the Report on the Admiralty headquarter staff, Recommendations which do not involve the Admiralty in anything at all are accepted and the Admiralty is pleased to accept them. Recommendation I did not affect the Admiralty. Recommendation 2, about footnotes, was accepted and also Recommendation 3, referring to the numbers and cost of staff borne on other Votes, was accepted by their Lordships. On the other recommendations we become involved in an argument in which most of us get lost. 'Ihis seems to indicate that there is something at fault in our own organisation in this House and in the methods we adopt in trying to control Government Departments. T do not know the answer to that.
Various suggestions have been made in recent years about the composition of various committees and whether there should be committees permanently engaged in examining certain matters. It seems that if that took place the committees would become more familiar with the work of a Department and its structure. We should not beat about the bush—it is difficult to follow the structure in Government Departments. When we add the fact that the structure is constantly changing and the names are constantly changing, someone who, before, was a director, becomes a director-general and a department changes its name, it all becomes very difficult. My experience on the Select Committee on Estimates was that it was extremely difficult in the very short time at the disposal of the Committee to give sufficient time and attention to a department which it merited.
I remember on one notable occasion when examining the Treasury we did not make any recommendations, but suggested that someone else should examine the matter thoroughly because we felt that in spite of all our examination we could not make recommendations about the control of expenditure, which is the reason why the Plowden Committee exists. The Admiralty seems to need more control than it has at present. We ought to look at the machinery by which we control it to see if we can evolve a machine which would enable hon. Members to understand and to follow what is going on and to criticise the structure in a much more effective manner than at present.
When we examine the figures in the Report we find them very interesting. The Admiralty Office figures for staff and the size of the Estimate are rather difficult to follow because, again owing to changes, we find sudden increases and sudden drops. I do not know what the Expense Accounts Department does as distinct from the Director of Navy Accounts Department, but I noted that in the period under review, 1959–60 the Expense Accounts Department has decreased its staff by only six. It has decreased from 71 to 65, and that seems a small decrease. When we look at the Navy staffs division, the people who are supposed to think out and work out

policies, we find a tremendous increase in spite of the fact that we have a very much smaller number of ships at sea. I could understand some increase being necessary because of commitments to N.A.T.O., but an increase from 296 to 336 seems formidable.
The staff of the Naval Assistant to the Second Sea Lord and Director of Officer Establishment has gone up by 25. This has all taken place at a time when the Navy has been getting very much smaller. The Chaplain of the Fleet's Department has increased from two to five, yet the numbers in the Navy are only two-thirds what they were.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: They are more religious and it is more necessary.

Mr. Willis: That may be so, or it may be an effort to get people of different denominations interested, but I do not see why that should be reflected in the Admiralty headquarters.
Then there is a question I have raised several times, that of the Senior Psychologist Department. There, in 1949, we had 19 and now, with a fleet which is very much smaller, we have 17, a reduction of two, yet there are 50,000 fewer men in the Navy. Surely they are not all becoming psychiatric cases. This seems very difficult to understand.

Mr. Thomas Steele: My hon. Friend will appreciate the simple fact that with this Government the strain on these men might be greater.

Mr. Willis: Probably there is something in that. In the dockyards department and the home and marine services department we find an increase of 176, yet we are closing down a barracks. It is true that dockyards are undertaking certain work which probably they did not do before, but that seems a very big increase when we have so many fewer ships and men and one barracks is being closed.
The amount of work which is being done, I should think, is not of a character to warrant such a large increase. I can understand some increases being made in connection with weapons, naval equipment, construction, and so on, but even then, I think that some of these


figures might be pruned. We should do with the Admiralty as the Admiralty did with the aircraft carrier I mentioned and say, "Do with 20 fewer men this year. Let us know how you get on."
In looking at the Admiralty Office staff, I have been wondering about the organisation itself. Something has been said about the control of the staff exercised by the Permanent Secretary. It was not adequate and one recommendation was that he should be given adequate power. I join in tributes paid to Sir John Lang by the hon. Member for Mitcham for the work that he has done for the Navy. I wonder, however, if it is the good thing for the Admiralty to have a man as Permanent Secretary to a Government Department who has never been in any other Government Department. Does he not get built in to the organisation and become so familiar with the Department that he knows all the answers? He knows all the stock arguments that can be trotted out when anyone suggests making a reduction here or doing something else somewhere else.
I mention this because I notice that Sir Clifford George Jarrett—Sir John Lang's successor—appears to be another Secretary with no experience outside the Admiralty—although I speak of him with al respect. I think that he entered the Admiralty at the age of 25. Would it not be a good thing to have someone with a knowledge of other Departments and how they are run? Some of them are run very differently from the Admiralty. There might be a cross-fertilisation of ideas. According to the Admiralty that is good for scientific services, and it is used in the argument about Weymouth, but the Admiralty does not favour it for itself.
Then there is the Board of Admiralty. We must all appreciate that it takes a very powerful First Lord to do very much with the Board. He sits at a table, as chairman, with men whose lives have been spent in the Service, and very often he himself has not been in the Service at all. Those men have great traditions behind them, a great desire to serve—and a great desire, also, to fight for and protect their Service, and get for it what they think it ought to have. I admire them for that, but is that the best set-up?
Starting from the top, as I have done, it would appear that certain things should be looked at, and this House of Commons should recognise this process of attack and defence going on between different Departments and this House. We, as hon. Members, should ask ourselves whether the present control machinery is adequate. The Report emphasises, not once but two or three times, that, in the opinion of a Committee which has spent a considerable time studying this, there should be a reduction, and that the present machinery is not adequate and should be strengthened.

Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: Before the hon. Gentleman concludes his remarks, I should like to answer what he said about the Board Secretary. As the hon. Gentleman knows, in the Civil Service, if a permanent secretary or secretary is to be succeeded, one looks through the Government Service to get the best person for the job, and he may be in one's own Department or in another. In this case, it was felt that the best person for the job was in the Department.
The hon. Gentleman argued that these people should be appointed from outside, but there is the fact that the First Lord comes fresh from the outside and the Civil Lord as well. That means that one gets some ideas from other Departments and also from civil life. To sit at the table at the Board of Admiralty, is not necessarily to sit with people unwilling to hear arguments from outside. I have also found, as, I am sure, has my noble Friend, that the Service members are no less willing than others to have new ideas injected, and look at them with a fresh and tolerant attitude.

Mr. Willis: I have no doubt at all that the Lords of the Admiralty act with the greatest courtesy and listen to new ideas. As to the secretary, it is not a question of appointing the best man—I do not doubt that the best man is appointed—but I do think that when new appointments are made we should look at people with experience of some other Department. If, occasionally, the best man for the job could be found from outside the Admiralty he would probably bring into it a new outlook.

5.25 p.m.

Mr. I. J. Pitman: We are all very grateful to the Committee for this wonderful Report. If members of the public would spend more time reading the fascinating question-and-answer technique with which our Select Committees conduct their inquiries they would have a very healthy respect for this House and for the Civil Service for the way in which they handle these very important investigations.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) quoted the establishment figures for chaplains and psychiatrists, and also for the dockyard, and in doing so emphasised one of the very great difficulties in which the Committee, this House and the Admiralty find themselves. During the period under review, the establishment of chaplains increased by only three, and that of psychiatrists had actually gone down, but the real question is why there has been such an increase in the dockyards.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Commander Pursey) selected as his ground for the fight the Naval Intelligence and went back to his early days in 1908. May we not the better to understand my point go back to the days of gunpowder? What was there in the way of Naval Intelligence when gunpowder had been invented for, say, 200 years, and the latest discovery was also many years old that lemons were extremely good for preventing scurvy? There was then no intelligence to handle. But in these days, in radio alone, the amount of fresh information coming forward in a couple of months is enough to keep a really large staff of intelligent people doing a very worth-while job, and that is inevitably reflected also in the dockyard establishments, about which the hon. Gentleman complained.
I should like to deal first with the recommendations in regard to organisation and methods. I am in a difficult position here, because I have been and still am what I might call an executive of the Financial Secretary in that I am still connected with organisation and methods in the Treasury. In this very ambivalent position I have to be very careful not to wear two hats—not to wear a political hat, if possible—but I think that I may be in order to call attention to three points in the Report at paragraph 25.
It says, first of all, that the O. and M. service "is available for assistance and advice", and I hope that that aspect of "assistance and advice" will be kept in mind. O. and M. is effective only if it is accepted willingly. It is quite wrong to think that it can be imposed. For that reason I would draw attention to the passage lower on that page XV. Referring to the Branch, the Report says that it is
… uncommon for it to be directed to a particular department by higher authority… 
I have great sympathy with that, because O. and M. is really effective only if the highest authority and the head of the Department takes so much interest in it that he does not have to direct anything because his interest is known, and the people who are anxious to have an effective Department are constantly wanting the assistance of the O. and M. men and listening to their advice. But it remains assistance and advice. Since those in the Department have the responsibility of that executive function, they are entitled to be treated with the honour and respect due to executive people and, in the end, are allowed to be responsible in the use of the best methods.
Further, it is interesting to note in that paragraph that the Report mentions that "in the case of the War Office and the Air Ministry there were Service officers in the O. and M. branch", and that the term of duty was long. In regard to uniformed staff working side by side with civilian staff, I think myself that that is the right basis and that the Army and Air Force O. and M. teams are in that respect better placed to give assistance and to gain acceptance for their advice than are the Admiralty teams. I think that this dichotomy between the two uniformed and civilian is harmful. The case brought up by the hon. and gallant Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, East about the award of the good conduct medal will I believe draw attention to this very point. I think that when the Civil Lord looks into this he will find that it is very doubtful whether such a worthwhile investigation would be handled by the Work Study Group, which is uniformed and not civilian, or by the Organisation and Methods Branch, which is civilian and not uniformed. I think there is here an important issue which the Civil Lord should examine in


order to find out whether or not the pursuit of efficiency should be by a single team, not by two teams, and whether that single team ought not to be composed of both civilian and uniformed members.
Turning to recomendations 5 and 6, I very much liked the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett), particularly about three things. One, when he said that he believed that the ideal but impracticable solution was for the Admiralty to be in a single building and not dispersed at all, and, secondly, if it were to be dispersed, then Bath is a better place for doing it than, shall we say, Maidenhead. Then he particularly drew attention to the real esprit-de-corps which has evolved in the city of Bath. He was very gracious in the way in which he referred to the Mayor of Bath welcoming the Vice-Controller to parties to Bath. We have a long tradition in Bath. Kings and Governments used to come to Bath, and we are only too ready and willing if there is any Department of Her Majesty's Government coming there to accord it the dignity which is appropriate to it. Speaking on behalf of all Bath citizens, I know that we have greatly welcomed these people, to whom we accord this cordial welcome.
In terms of the first point, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East is perfectly right. The only way in which the organisation can carry on ideally is that in which one can go down a corridor and talk to the man concerned, and in which one does not even have to put on a hat. I know that in the Air Ministry division between Whitehall and Adastral House was big enough to make difficult what might have been organisational more nearly perfection.
The issue of organisation is thus seen to be one of perfection of communications, and I think that, since it is impossible to have the whole of the Admiralty in a single building in London, there is everything to be said for a final and complete decision, whioh has really been taken already, that Bath is better than Maidenhead and is jolly good in itself and that it should accommodate the whole of an organisation within which communications may be developed as perfectly as possible.
May I draw attention to the astonishingly good external communications emanating from Bath, if such communications are also at issue. Already, my hon. and gallant Friend has mentioned the communications between London and Bath, but if we have Naval Construction in Bath, then we find that the train services and the geographical position are ideal for such communications. I do not mind whether it is the communications with the ports or with the great manufacturing centres of Britain. There is a through train service. People are apt to forget that the old Midland line which used to run "The Pines Express" from Bournemouth to Newcastle upon Tyne, runs through Bath and through the whole of the middle of industrial England, with through carriages. Bath also has through services via another route with through connections Swindon and Didcot to Birmingham and so up the west coast route to Liverpool and Glasgow. We also have fine train services down to Plymouth, where the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers) knows quite well the services may be still more ideally developed.
I have looked at Bradshaw and have noted the space allotted to Bath, both Spa Station and Green Park Station, and at the wealth of time tables in which Bath features. There is W.72—Portsmouth, Southsea and Southampton down through Salisbury.
There is L.210—Plymouth, Cardiff, Newport, Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool to Newcastle upon Tyne; W.61 W.62 and W.81—Plymouth, Newport and Bristol; London, Cardiff and Weston-super-Mare; and Avonmouth. There is also S.36. Weymouth, Swanage and Poole, and N.34, West Hartlepool, Sunderland, Newcastle upon Tyne, and so to Edinburgh, Leith and Glasgow.
The rail communications are wonderful. May I now deal with the point which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East made about telephonic communications? One of the worst menaces in the world has been the development of the Creed Teleprinter, instead of the facsimile reproducer. If we have the plans of a fitment in a ship, we cannot send it by Creed. One has to put the plans in one's pocket and take a first class carriage to London. No telephone conference is any good unless it


can have a facsimile transmission which can show plans or unless there is a closed circuit television, to show them.
I hope that the Admiralty will set about improving the communications, including the railway communications, which can be a lot better on these lines. My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster) will agree with me there. Secondly, I think that this new Pullman car is a menace which is stopping people working on the trains. I am at no disadvantage if I have to go to my constituency in Bath, as compared with my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. R. Bell) having to go to Maidenhead, I get through a tremendous amount of work in the train and so do the Admiralty civil servants. I see them at work.
What is the menace these days is the Pullman car with teacups and messes on the table, with the table at the wrong height preventing one doing the full amount of work because there is not sufficient room in which to do an honest hour or two's work. Moreover the table laid for a meal creates that claim for subsistence allowance for a cup of tea which is really not wanted and stops the work being done. I think the job for the Civil Lord is not only to do everything he can to improve the train services in all these directions but also to improve the telegraphic communications and above all the facsimile transmission arrangements, because the real job which he has to do now that the Admiralty is even more securely and permanently anchored at Bath is to improve communications between all the Departments, docks and industrial centres with which it is necessary to have liaison.
We in this House should congratulate the Committee on the work it has done as well as the Admiralty on the way in which it has faced the problems which have thus been raised for it.

5.39 p.m.

Mr. Will Owen: May I, as a member of the Committee, initially associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr), and also pay my tribute to the services rendered by Sir John Lang and wish him well in his retirement? At the same time, I wish also to recognise the invaluable services Tendered by the

clerical staff of the Committee, which very much facilitated our work.
We have listened for some time to comments upon the Report, which indicate a growing interest and purpose in the endeavours of the Select Committee. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Commander Pursey) was not wholly entertaining in calling our attention to the inherent danger of Parkinson's Law as it emerged not only at Admiralty headquarters but in many other phrases of administration and institutions throughout the land.
The hon. and gallant Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett) commented upon what is, after all, one of the major challenges in the Report which I hope that the Civil Lord will not only note but will regard as a mandate for action. That is the present division of the administrative set-up between London and Bath. No one argues about why the division emerged. It now belongs to the history of the past twenty years. What seemed to emerge from the Select Committee's investigation was the unjustifiable waste of time and expense in bringing together executive heads of departments for consecutive conferences in London on matters which might have been resolved on many occasions by telephone conversations.
A comment by the hon. and gallant Member for Croydon, North-East might be noted at Admiralty headquarters. He said that in this age of electronics and automation it should be possible to establish a phrase of integration of top level consultation between London and Bath which could spare the taxpayer the expenses of the innumerable journeys, together with the expense allowances involved, which I do not think have produced material reward in terms of basic service.
I am sure that the residents of Bath are conscious of the economic advantage of having Admiralty headquarters in their city. The presence of the unit there is not only economically important. It has emerged as a social acquisition to the whole community. It would be difficult to attempt at this late stage to sever that section of headquarters administration without correspondingly causing infinite harm to the economy and social amenities of Bath.
I do not think that the Select Committee was striving to concern itself so much with the geographic division between London and Bath as to call attention to the vitally important need for a new assessment of administrative integration for head office efficiency in this important Service. So far in the debate we have not spoken of that section of the Report concerned with the control of expenditure. That is the essential cry of every hon. Member, especially hon. Members on this side of the House, when facing the burden which may emerge later this year when the Chancellor of the Exchequer makes his decisions. There is a section in the Report which I humbly commend to the attention of hon. Members. It deals with the control of expenditure.
I hope the House will realise the difficulty of the Committee in this respect. It was mentioned in the introductory remarks of the hon. Member for Mitcham. Information is placed at the disposal of the investigating Committee which, for security reasons, cannot be published. The information must tend to reflect itself in the nature of the recommendation made by the Committee and, to the ordinary member of the public, it would not seem that the recommendation is substantiated. When the Report appeared this section of it received very little attention from the general Press. I believe that was due too the inability of the Committee to publish all the information at its disposal. Thus the basic substance of the recommendations contained in the Report was not a publicity item for the Press.
Nevertheless, those hon. Members who are familiar with our procedure in the mother of Parliaments are aware that the Committee on Public Accounts has time and time again called attention to this fact. In our debates on the public accounts hon. Members have repeatedly spoken of items having increased in cost two or three times over between their initial statement and the finalising of their payment. That applies also to the expenditure which has emerged within the field of Admiralty headquarters over recent years.
However, the Select Committee on Estimates is not concerned with the machinery of control but rather with an

understanding as to by what means it is possible and desirable to establish a basic medium of control over Admiralty House expenditure. It is not a question of a public accounts post-mortem. The Committee on Public Accounts and the Select Committee on Estimates move closely together in matters of this character and the uniformity of their work might reasonably commend itself to hon. Members. Paragraph 29 of the Report calls attention to
the long and complicated process involved in the produotion of a new ship or weapon … 
The hon. and gallant Member for Croydon, North-East might have enlightened us from his experience at Bath about the drill involved in this process—from the instructions initially issued by the Board to the Naval Staff, consultation with the Military Branch, with other Branches of the Secretariat, with the Materials Branch, with the Finance Branch—the whole chain of command and consultation between Bath and London before any basic action is taken.
Paragraph 30 of the Report gives general practical illustrations of this tortuous procedure. The Admiralty's reply—I commend this to the Minister for bis attention—misses entirely the point. We are not concerned wholly with the geographical division between Bath and London or between Portland and Glasgow. We are concerned with a division of responsibility and the connection between research and production. We are told by the Admiralty that there is and has been a constant service of liaison between the respective Departments. This seems to us to fall very much short of what is required and it reveals very definite administrative splits, a waste of time and money and a general development of individual and collective frustration.
It came as a considerable surprise to the Committee to learn that, in undertaking the modernisation of ships, the decision to undertake the work is made before the ship itself has been examined. This is found in the answers to Questions Nos. 1087–93. This must surely arouse in the mind of the inquiring Member the challenge that an organisation will undertake the modernisation of a ship before it has actually been examined.
The Admiralty's reply, as indicated in the Report, is really no answer to the evidence and the charge made by the Committee. Is it really surprising that we find from our experience that costs ultimately are totally different from the original Estimates? The experience of this examination leads one to the view that there is an urgent need for the establishment of a thorough costings section for the Admiralty as a Department. This is no new idea. It has been submitted by previous investigating Committees and has made a little impact upon the Admiralty over the years. I welcome the initial agreement that the matter will again be reviewed. I welcome the commendation of the idea that there should emerge a cost-consciousness in order that a more effective assessment of expenditure may be pursued. I hope that the "Way Ahead" Committee, when it examines the central costing unit at headquarters, will be willing to expedite its establishment and effective application in the interests of the whole Department. Its present size is six persons. This is no indication to encourage greatly the view that the Admiralty has recognised the need for this vital co-ordinating and supervising machinery in control of basic expenditure. If this can be undertaken with a great deal more speed and effectiveness than has so far been shown, I feel sure that the time and effort spent by the Committee and the House will be reasonably fruitful and successful.

5.55 p.m.

Captain John Litchfield: Not much more than twelve hours ago, when we were engaged on another marine topic, the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) confessed that his thought processes were rather slow at that stage of our business. I have a nasty feeling that my own thought processes, after a middle watch on these benches, have not yet gained adequate speed to do justice to this very valuable Report. It is an exceptionally interesting document. I confess that, although I have spent about seven years in the Admiralty and have served in the plans, intelligence, operations and administrative planning divisions of the Naval Staff, and have been a director of one of them, I have learned a great deal from the Report. I add my congratulations to

the Select Committee for what I regard as a very valuable document.
I was very glad to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) say that the first consideration which the Select Committee had in mind was the interests and efficiency of the Royal Navy. I think that that would be our general approach to this Report. With many of the recommendations of the Select Committee I fully agree, and I shall not take up time in discussing those. There are, however, one or two points on which I myself do not agree, and I shall in a few moments discuss certain of the recommendations.
I wish, first, to make one general observation which will be seen, I think, to relate to the remarks on some of the recommendations which I shall offer in a moment or two. A Service Ministry differs from all other Departments of State in that it is partly staffed by civil servants and partly staffed by professional Service officers, partly by the suppliers and partly by the users. This is a very valuable principle to maintain. It has, of course, certain disadvantages. On the Service side, an officer comes into a Ministry rather raw in the ways of Whitehall and suffering from a certain lack of continuity. But such disadvantages are more than compensated by the civil servants who work alongside the Service officer and, above all, the system has the overriding advantage that it brings a constant stream of refreshment and user's experience into the Ministry. We must not weaken this principle in any way, and I am sure that it would not be the wish of the Select Committee to do so. This coming in of men with fresh ideas and recent practical experience in the case of the Admiralty is a great strength and asset to the business of the Ministry—in this case the Royal Navy.
It is also important that the Service officers in these kinds of appointment at headquarters should not stay chairborne too long in Whitehall. The influence of Whitehall has an insidious effect on most sailors coming into the Admiralty and it takes a Jackie Fisher to remain for very long impervious to what one might call the tranquilliser effects of Whitehall. That is not in any way a criticism of Whitehall. Far less is it a criticism of the Civil Service. But I think that we


must not weaken this principle of retaining the freshness, the drive and the decision which is brought into the Admiralty by officers from the sea.
I have the utmost admiration for the Civil Service, particularly the Admiralty Civil Service, alongside which I have worked for many years and which gives the greatest assistance, support and strength to the naval officer taking up a responsible appointment in the Admiralty. But I think that the ideal in a Service Department is this combination of the professional coming in for not too long a period and the civil servant who maintains the continuity and keeps the professional on the right lines. It would be a great pity and a great mistake to try to turn a naval officer into a kind of apprentice civil servant or alternatively to permit the Civil Service side, I do not mean the political side, of the Admiralty to have too great a control over the naval side.
That is why I am decidedly apprehensive about recommendations 4 and 7. Recommendation 4 advocates a definite policy of civilianisation at headquarters. As the Admiralty has shown in its reply and as I know full well, the process over the past decade or more has been carried a very long way. Certainly since the 'thirties it has been carried a great deal further. I wish to limit myself to about 10 minutes as this is a short debate and I do not wish to develop these points in detail, but. I assure the House that the process has been carried a very long way since before the war.
I well understand the Select Committee's reasons for advocating a policy of civilianisation. My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham explained how expensive a factor—I will not say a luxury—the professional naval officer was in relation to his opposite number in the Civil Service. But I go back to what my hon. Friend said. Our first consideration while making sure that there is no waste, inefficiency or confusion and that the organisation is as good as it can be, should be the efficient running of the Admiralty machine.
I wish to pass to the seventh recommendation, which is that the tours of duty of senior naval officers at Headquarters should be extended. I do not disagree with that recommendation where it applies to some of the material

and technical appointments. I think that they could be held longer with advantage, but I should be against extending the period for other officers, particularly in the staff divisions. I should like to quote the Admiralty comment on that, which is a short statement of fact:
A Post List Captain serves only nine years on the Active List; 5 years in a single Admiralty appointment would therefore limit to 4 years the time during which he could gain wider experience in other appointments…. Finally, it is worth remembering that some broad continuity of experience within the Headquarters, coupled with work outside, is achieved by officers who return to Headquarters to work at different levels but in Divisions and Departments with whose problems they have previously been in contact.
Recommendation 13 is that there should be a fundamental re-examination of the size and composition of the naval staff division. In my seven years of various periods at the Admiralty on the naval staff side I cannot remember any time when the size and composition of the naval staff division was not being fundamentally re-examined. A large number of most able Civil Servants and equally able flag officers in the Admiralty have from time to time occupied either their spare time, which is not very much, or their time after filling certain appointments with these little investigations into how to do things better, cheaper, quicker or whatever it might be. In some cases they have passed quietly away. In others they have produced interesting reports which few people could understand. In very few cases has it been possible to produce a really fundamental and workable reorganisation. I am all for the recommendation, but I am not sure that it is quite so easy to carry it out.
Under the same recommendation I should like briefly to refer to the remarks of the Select Committee in paragraph 34 of its covering memorandum which advocates that the Administrative Planning Division should be abolished. In my opinion, nothing is more dangerous than for retired naval officers, such as myself, who are out of date and probably out of touch, trying to do the Admiralty's job in replanning their internal organisation or in saying what should be scrapped and what should be retained. But as an uninformed outsider I may say that it would be a pity, to put it mildly, to abolish that division.
I do not think that a convincing case can be made out for its retention as at this moment, during peacetime, with nothing very exciting going on, but I assure the House that that naval staff division was created because there was no other Q element in the naval staff of the Admiralty. If ever we become involved in fire brigade duties at the bottom end of the scale in which the Navy is closely involved or in combined operations, or in something much bigger, I think that a lack of that Q element in the naval staff as a separate entity would be very much regretted. I hope that that point will be carefully considered. In no fit of enthusiasm for economies should we abolish something which has been created and which would be much more difficult to recreate than to scrap.
Finally, I should like to refer briefly to the first recommendation which I endorse. It is unfair and unrealistic to try to relate corresponding departments and divisions in one Service Ministry with those in another, which has a different task to perform and is possibly run on a different system. I hope that the Committee, when they get round to the War Office and the Air Ministry, will, on the basis of the very detailed knowledge they now have of the Admiralty, take a very good look at corresponding departments in those Ministries, particularly at the relative ranks and numbers of officers employed there. I will not try to forecast what they will discover, but I think they will be surprised. They will find that many corresponding appointments are held by more relatively senior officers. I forecast that what they discover will not reflect at all adversely upon their Lordships or the Admiralty.
When they have completed their examination, their friendly grilling, perhaps, of the three Service Ministries and produced two more reports like this, I hope the Minister of Defence will take a good, hard look at the three reports to see what one Ministry can learn from another and whether there are any savings or improvements to be made.
I feel that some of the Admiralty's ways, which have been criticised a little, when compared with some of the goings on, if I may put it that way, in other

places, will be found to be not quite so bad as might at first seem.
With those remarks I should like once again to congratulate the Select Committee on this excellent report.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present.

House counted, and, 40 Members being present —

6.12 p.m.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose —

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): Mr. Paget.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I should like your advice, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, as to the course of the debate. Do I understand that the debate on this very large sum of expenditure, involving over £400 million, is now to be terminated, or will we be able to continue the debate? We consider that this expenditure is excessive, and we wish to say a few words in support of the Report of the Select Committee.

Mr. Paget: Further to that point of order. It may be convenient if I make it quite clear that I am not in any sense seeking to wind up the debate. This is not Opposition time. This is the time of the Select Committee, and a member of the Select Committee, as I understand it, if he has the good fortune to catch Mr. Speaker's eye, will wind up the debate. I am intervening at this stage with what I hope will be a short speech.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Members have every right to catch the eye of the Chair and the hon. Member nearly caught it. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) failed to catch the eye of the Chair. We are debating the Motion on the Order Paper, and the debate will come to an end at 7.30 p.m.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. R. T. Paget: This is a new procedure. I think it is the first occasion on which Service Estimates have been debated upon a Motion that the House should take note of a Report of a Select Committee. I feel that it is a procedure which has very well justified itself today.
This is an attack on the Admiralty, a criticism of the Admiralty, without party bias. The Report has been prepared with a great deal of expert knowledge. What we are studying, and what the Select Committee has brought to our attention, is a very remarkable instance of Parkinson's Law. That law, as I understand it, falls within two propositions. First within any large organisation there is a tendency to growth which is quite independent of the work done by the organisation. It grows by the division of cells, as microbes grow, and it is quite an automatic function. The second element of Parkinson's Law is that work will always multiply itself in order to fill the time available for it. That is a law of principle which seems very well illustrated by what has happened in the Admiralty and by what the Select Committee has brought before us.
I will mention one or two figures from an answer which the Civil Lord of the Admiralty gave me a few days ago. In 1938 we had a fleet of 434 ships of war, manned by 68,000 men. We then had some 4,400 people at the Admiralty, both civilians and sailors. We now have more than double the number of people at headquarters—just on 10,000 as against 4,400; we have less than half the ships—211 as against 434; and we have more than half the men at sea—43,000 as against 68,000. That illustrates the point which is made here that these ships are more complicated and have more equipment, so that the number of men has not been reduced in quite the same proportion as the number of ships. However, it is not so very far off.
For the information of hon. Gentlemen, there was a Fleet Air Arm before and after the war. The most interesting figures of all are those at the height of the war. At the Admiralty there were about 18,500 people, but just consider what they were handling. They were not merely handling a fleet of some 1,200 ships in actual war service, with 170,000 men aboard. They were, in effect, handling all the convoys, all the merchant ships, the vast intelligence service that was necessary in war time and all the great liaison services with our allies and with the combination of services operating in the war. For that, we had less than twice as many people as we have now.
I served at the Admiralty for part of the war and it seemed perfectly clear to

me, even then, that very large economies in manpower were available. To give a personal instance, I worked in the war room. The function of the war room was to keep the charts marked up. They were not the key charts. We got the information down, but we kept the charts and the signals marked up for my Lords of the Admiralty and the Chief of Staff to come in and see how the war at sea was looking at any particular time.
That was during the war. There were four captains, four commanders, eight lieutenants, R.N.V.R. and, I think, four girls. I am confident that that job, which was extremely simple, could have been done by four R.N.V.R. lieutenants acting as in charge of the watch and four girls. If that was the situation then, it must be multiplied now.
Having looked at those general figures, which show, obviously, a disproportionate increase of staff, what is the basic trouble? Apart from the natural growth idea, I believe that the basic trouble is absence of a naval policy. Since the war, we have never been able to make up our minds what we wanted a Navy for and what its functions were. This is a non-party debate. When we were the Government back in 1945, I was directing exactly this same criticism, and I have been doing it ever since, that nobody had his mind really applied to what we want a Navy for and what its functions are. A great many hon. and gallant Members opposite and behind me will know very well the classic statement of the old days that the function of the Navy was to keep the sea open for our shipping and to deny it to the enemy. Since the war, however, and in the postwar circumstances, that has not been reechoed.
In so far as that function happens at all, it is today a function primarily of the air. It is not a function of the sea. In reconnaissance, in covering and in attaok, the sea today is held primarily from the air. That is quite apart from the difficulty of conceding in this atomic age a general sea war, as apart from localised land wars, which is not conducted in atomic terms.
Since we have had no clear idea of what we wanted a Navy for, we have sought to have a little of everything, to pursue every new idea a little, to have some surface and some submarine craft


without any clear idea of what they were to do and in what sort of war. We have had as a major activity the anti-submarine rô le, although, again, I find it extraordinarily difficult to visualise a general sea war in which anti-submarine work could be of any service, since the ports would have disappeared and there would not be much point in stopping the ships. Again, we have in small measure even considered combined operations.
With the absence of clarity as to the function of the fleet, there has been an enormous extravagance at headquarters. As we have a little of everything, as we have one ship of each class, we find that the headquarters staff necessary to design one ship is almost as much as would be necessary to design and supervise a whole class. That is brought out on the first page of the Admiralty's reply, when it states:
The argument that greater complexity directly causes increases in H.Q. numbers may be illustrated by some figures: about half the H.Q. numbers are employed dealing with the material of the Fleet; the design of a modern type of ship now demands between a five- and eight-fold increase of man hours compared with a comparable pre-war type, and while there are somewhat fewer ships nowadays, there are more types of ships, and of weapons and of equipment generally.
Because we have not made up our minds what we are going to do, there is this idea of a little of everything, with the vast complexity and variation leading to the multiplication of non-combatants at the centre.
The most worrying thing of all—and I who loved, and love, the Navy do not find this easy to say—is that this is evidence of the decadence of a Service. Decadence is the loss of faith in a purpose. As one loses faith in a purpose, the organisation ceases to be for a purpose. It becomes an organisation for itself. The ships disappear, but the admirals go on until the stage is reached when we do with admirals instead of ships. It has happened in many navies. A South American instance comes to mind. We are not there yet, but we are moving that way. At the moment, it depends a little what one calls a major ship, but certainly, on the old definition of major units, we have today considerably more admirals than ships. That is an alarming picture.

Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: I am afraid that those figures are not correct. The admirals have been pruned and will be pruned further. The ships have come down in number and, as my hon. Friend will show in his explanatory statement, we have had a very good record in the last ten years of bringing new ships into commission. I would not wish it to go out that the admirals were matching the ships. The ratio is quite different.

Mr. Paget: Doubtless, the hon. Gentleman will tell us the ratio. If, however, we take aircraft carriers, which today are the major units, and cruisers, we certainly have far more admirals than we have carriers and cruisers. In the old days, those were the captains' commands. Ships smaller than that were not the commands of post-captains. We have considerably more admirals than we have cruisers and aircraft carriers.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: So has every operational navy in the world.

Mr. Paget: The proportion of admirals to tonnage, if one may put it that way, has shifted in a very alarming degree. That shift is a classic symptom of the decadence of a Service. It is for that reason that I feel that this is a very serious matter. This ratio of brass to tonnage, of admirals to tons, is a ratio which wants very careful watching.
I conclude with a suggestion about how this kind of problem should be dealt with. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) is absolutely right when he says that what has been happening here is that we have the acceptance of all the recommendations that do not make any difference and the side-stepping of all the ones that do. I suggest that the way to prune the Department is first to prune the top chap and then to take the second chap without promotion and tell him the cuts that he has to make. If he finds that he cannot do all the things required of him he should be asked to bring forward his suggestion about what should be cut down and pruned. If we went through the Service on that system, it would be possible to secure some fairly dramatic reductions.

6.32 p.m.

Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: After what has been a very pleasant afternoon I should hate to introduce a


discordant note into the debate. I therefore, first concentrate on the area of agreement that I could accept in the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). He has talked about the ratio between admirals and ships. A good many of us are anxious about the ratio of the people in Admiralty headquarters to the number of ships that we have afloat.
The most surprising part of the Report of the Select Committee on Estimates to me was Question No. 483, where the Chairman asked:
… if there are 40 Headquarters staff to every ship in the Navy now and there were 28 in 1952–53.. do you take the view that the number of ships in the Navy really has little relevance to the number of people in the Admiralty administering them?
The answer was:
That would be my view; or, rather, that the trend of numbers which you have indicated is not significant of an imbalance in the administration.
Therefore, if the hon. and learned Member for Northampton is complaining about the number of admirals in relation to ships, may I ask why we now have forty people at headquarters for each ship whereas in 1952–53 there were only twenty-eight?

Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: That was a Treasury witness being examined. That has no relevance at all.

Mr. Godman Irvine: That may well be. But perhaps my hon. Friend will explain the position when he replies to the debate. These are the sort of figures which are bandied about in the House, in the country and among my constituents. I have the impression that there are more people ashore taking care of our ships than are absolutely essential. This is an opportunity for my hon. Friend to explain the true position.
I know that in the observations set out by the Admiralty there are a series of explanations why that position has arisen. The first is that the fleet is today more complex than it was in the past. I was very struck when last year in the Explanatory Note to the Navy Estimates there were set out examples of the complications that had been introduced into the fleet in recent years. Two were of electronic equipment. For example, this equipment in "Illustrious" in 1939

cost £13,500 whereas in "Hermes" in 1959 it cost over £1 million. The armaments for a cruiser in 1939 cost £500,000, whereas in 1959 it cost £3·7 million. This is a valid point and it must of course require more manpower to deal with such equipment.
Other points are set out in the Admiralty's observations about the various organisations, such as N.A.T.O., CENTO, and S.E.A.T.O., which, of course, demand manpower as well, and there is the increased number of Commonwealth navies. There is also the final point about standardisation which clearly would create a great deal of work while we got it. I should have thought, however, that in the end it would have produced some benefit in the number of people required to administer it once it was working. I suggest, therefore, that if my hon. Friend has anything to say which would help us understand these figures he would be doing a valuable task.
In opening the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) paid a tribute to the speed with which the Admiralty had produced its observations. I should like to add a further word of congratulation. If my arithmetic is correct, eighteen recommendations were set out in the Report and of these five applied to the Treasury, leaving thirteen which were matters to be dealt with by the Admiralty. Not only were these observations made very speedily but the Admiralty accepted in eight weeks ten out of the thirteen. Therefore, there is an additional word of commendation which should be said on this occasion.
Another matter in the Report which surprised me is that on page 261 there is a long list of modern office machinery which is being used in the Admiralty. In my not so frequent visits to the Admiralty I have never regarded it as a respository of a large amount of modern office machinery. I was delighted to find that this is the case.
The list is headed in the report as:
List of types of office equipment and machinery currently in use in the Admiralty Office.
I should be obliged if my hon. Friend would help us a little not only about how "currently" but also how widely


this equipment is used. I find it difficult to reconcile my ideas of the Admiralty with large numbers of dictating machines and similar equipment.
One thing missing in the list is any reference to telephones. Have they been missed out deliberately or are internal telephones and equipment of that sort not so widely provided in the Admiralty? I should be glad to have a few words from my hon. Friend on that point.
I notice in its observations on Recommendation 5, the Admiralty said that it was not at present practicable to find accommodation for the whole of the Admiralty headquarters in London. We know that there is a divergence of view on whether it is desirable to have the whole headquarters in London. Be that as it may, I wonder whether anybody has had a look at the actual physical structure of the Admiralty building. There may be some of us who regard it as an architectural gem and there may be others of us who could perhaps reconcile ourselves to the site being used in another way.
Which of these two schools of thought is right, would not be for me to say, but there is a precedent on the other side of Horse Guards Parade for the outer shell of a building being retained as the interior is rebuilt in a more economic and better way. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Civil Lord might look at these possibilities to see whether more people might not be housed within the present building.
On the other side of Whitehall there is a modern building used by the Board of Trade. What is the physical density of the people working there compared with that in the Admiralty? It appears that if the problem of density was studied it might be possible to put the Admiralty site to better use.

6.40 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: This has been a very interesting, if not well attended, debate. I agree with hon. and gallant Members and other hon. Members in paying tribute to the hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) who presided over the Select Committee which has given us such a comprehensive and detailed Report.
My only complaint is that, unlike the Defence White Paper, it is not illustrated. I hope that hon. Members might take it as a constructive suggestion that this rather formidable document of nearly 300 pages would be very much improved, and much more readable, if there were certain pictures and diagrams of some of these rather expensive vessels, with a statement of their cost, so that the ordinary taxpayer might be enticed to spend 16s. on this Report.
I agree with the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Pitman), who spoke in appreciation of the conclusions of this formidable document. I am sorry that he is not present, because I wondered if he had quite proved his case for having so much of the Admiralty headquarters in Bath. If this document were illustrated, we could have very beautiful pictures of Bath and it would serve as a kind of publicity brochure for that lovely town.
As far as I could gather, however, he was speaking only from a constituency interest, and did not want the Admiralty baby thrown out of the bath. He argued that these gentlemen at the Admiralty were able to have much more leisure to do high-powered thinking, because they had so long to spend in the train. That seemed to me to be a rather conclusive argument.
After he had surveyed various towns for suitability for Admiralty headquarters, had stated the case for Bath as a beautiful base for getting here, there and everywhere, and had told us of the beautiful railway connections from Bath, I felt that he had made a case not for keeping naval headquarters at Bath but for removing it either to Crewe or to Carlisle.
If we proceed on the assumption that the more they travel in the train, the more efficient the Lords of the Admiralty become, then there is an excellent case for putting headquarters in Aberdeen, Inverness, Wick or Thurso. But in whatever part of the country we put headquarters—which is so very expensive—there is a case for the House to give careful attention to the proposals put by the hon. Member for Bath.
By some strange coincidence, this Report comes up for discussion on the day of the publication of the Defence White Paper, and we are naturally concerned with any proposal that would lead


to greater economy in a Service whose Estimates, in spite of this Report, seem to go up regularly year by year. This year they have increased again, and that is an additional reason why we should consider whether the sum is not an extravagant one from the point of view of the taxpayer.
In putting the searchlight on this expenditure, the Select Committee has done a very useful service. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Commander Pursey). I am glad to see him coming back to these debates. He and I have taken part in them for a good many years. His suggestions were good ones. Pruning is needed. The Government should find a man to do the pruning, and I can think of no greater wielder of the economy axe than the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) who is at the moment wielding it on the National Health Service. If he turned to the Select Committee's Report he would have no difficulty in introducing exceedingly drastic economies which would save a great deal of money.
I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget)—I hope I am not embarrassing him in saying so—that the reason for this discussion about naval headquarters lies in the absence of naval policy. The members of the Admiralty have to justify their existence, and they do not know quite how to do it in the circumstances of the day.
They do it by a certain amount of juggling, which has been remarked upon by other hon. Members. Every year I look in the Memorandum which accompanies the Naval Estimates, hoping to see the master plan. But in vain. In these days when we are talking, for example, about new ideas in naval warfare—the Polaris submarine, for example—it is alarming to hear my hon. and learned Friend say that nobody has an idea of what the Navy is for. I have recently heard him try to fill the vacuum.
What would he do if he were First Lord of the Admiralty and had to give instructions to headquarters? I understand him to say that what the Navy needs is a strategy based on the Polaris submarine. I confess that if naval headquarters in Bath or anywhere else is to consider that proposition, I hope that it

will carefully consider also the recommendation in the Select Committee Report, especially No. 18, which says:
The Treasury should give continuous consideration to the machinery in the Admiralty for controlling costs and numbers.
Various hon. Members have, during the last month or so, suggested that the Admiralty should go in for atomic submarines and for Polaris submarines. If the Treasury is to give "continuous consideration" to this machinery for controlling costs and numbers, it must go into the whole question of what the Polaris submarines are to cost.
The Admiralty should not switch to a strategy based on Polaris submarines without taking the Treasury completely into its confidence. The Prime Minister has told us that a Polaris submarine costs about £50 million, and that the missiles likely to be fired from the vessels will cost about £500,000 each. I hope that the suggestion that the Treasury should give continuous consideration to the machinery in the Admiralty will be put into operation quickly and that the Treasury will begin its deliberations before we decide to go in for Polaris submarines at £50 million a time.
In Recommendation 10, we are told:
The Admiralty should undertake a further review of the central costing machinery, and should consider the establishment of a separate costing branch in the Secretariat".
I am all in favour of that, because the new strategy advocated by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton must be judged not only on its naval but on its financial implications. How many Polaris submarines are we to have? If they are to cost £50 million, will we have six? Will the Admiralty deliver them in London or in Bath?
That is £300 million added to the Navy Estimates. I do not understand how those of us who are calling for a reduction in Government expenditure can be thought likely readily to agree to that. We cannot go in for £300 million on Polaris submarines unless we economise as the Minister of Health is doing.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the limit has been reached about Polaris submarines. Controlling the cost is another matter, but that object of the cost which is to be controlled is beyond the scope of the Reports being considered.

Mr. Hughes: I was only envisaging the possibility of these recommendations being carried into effect. It is suggested that the Treasury should give continuous consideration to the machinery in the Admiralty and, while that may mean a reduction of the number of people in the Admiralty, it will mean an increase in the number in the Treasury. We will have more Treasury officials than we now have Admiralty officials and I do not see that we could get fewer admirals if we followed the policy of my hon. and learned Friend. The expenditure and the admirals would be transferred from aircraft carriers to submarines. That is what has happened year after year.
I do not know whether hon. and right hon. Gentlemen have studied naval activities in recent manoeuvres when the Fleet Air Arm justified its existence by saying that it had successfully invented a technique for spotting submarines. There will be a juggling around of personnel from one body to another when what we want are reductions in expenditure and in manpower. Reporting on the last naval manoeuvres, The Times naval correspondent quoted the rear-admiral in charge of the Fleet Air Arm as saying that there was now a technique for catching and attacking submarines which was so advanced that, from an aircraft of the Fleet Air Arm, it was possible to "smell", "see" and fight the submarines.
If that is to be the line of strategy proposed as an alternative to the Government's strategy, I can see that next year or the year afterwards the same Select Committee will be meeting and conscientiously producing its reports which the Admiralty will again succeed in out-manoeuvring.
I would prefer a Geddes Axe, with people outside the Treasury or the Admiralty forming a special inquiry into the whole of this matter of the expenditure of money and the use of personnel in order to see whether drastic reductions can be made. This is not a new argument to come from this side of the House. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East and my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) and I have taken part in these debates for many years. We can remember how the right

hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) used to come to the House and curse the Admiralty. Anything I have said in naval debates has been mild and moderate compared with the attacks which the right hon. Gentleman made on the Admiralty in the time of the Labour Government when the expenditure was one-fifth or one-quarter of what it now is.
I remember the right hon. Gentleman making a speech—which I remember especially well because I gave the talk on "The Week in Westminster" on that occasion—when he talked about people in the Admiralty making jobs for themselves and their descendants. He said that what we wanted was a House of Commons which would fulfil its national duty and probe and cleanse and cut down expenditure.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Is my hon. Friend suggesting the resuscitation of the Cohen Committee on wages, profits and prices?

Mr. Hughes: I judge these committees not by their names but by what they do, and they do not do very much. Since the right hon. Gentleman made that severe, scathing and savage attack on the Admiralty—and nobody knew more about the Admiralty than he did at that time—nothing has been done except to increase the number of Blue Books which are always presented to the House in these debates which are attended by few hon. Members and soon forgotten.
We will never solve the problem of scrutinising public expenditure until we take the line advocated by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East and make a drastic cut in expenditure. I want the cut to be a good deal more than £40 million, but I should be content with that to begin with. I do not yet see any positive sign that these useful suggestions to reduce Government expenditure will be accepted by Her Majesty's Government.

7.0 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander S. L. C. Maydon: I am sure that the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) will not expect me to chase the many hares he has started this evening. I want to concentrate my remarks on


Recommendations 5 and 6. Recommendation 5 relates to the possibility of alternative sites for the headquarters organisation, and Recommendation 6 relates to the concentrating of certain subdivisions of some Departments which have become dispersed.
I am afraid that I am going to join issue with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett) in his remarks about Bath. I agree that, as regards esprit de corps in that part of the Admiralty which is now in Bath, and as regards the human ties between the people of Bath and the personnel of the Admiralty, things are in a very good state. Nevertheless, a large preponderance of the evidence which came before the sub-committee, both direct evidence and evidence by implication, was undoubtedly in favour of a far greater degree of concentration than is at present possible of the Admiralty headquarters in one place.
I fully agree with what my hon. and gallant Friend said about communications and the ways in which they could be improved; by telephone conferences and by the use of closed circuit television. I think that quite a lot can still be done in that direction, and all the time he must remember that these electronic devices are improving and developing and that there are probably far greater possibilities in the future than there are now.
Let us look first, however, at this curious division; the way in which the Admiralty by force of circumstances has been split very nearly in half. The evidence which we took showed that the journey to and fro involved, or will involve, an expenditure in this and following years of about £46,000. If one translates this into railway fares making due allowance for the element of subsistence which is included in the figure, and then translates the return journey railway fares into hours spent in travelling, my rough estimate is that about 60,000 man-hours are lost per year, and I should think that it is considerably more than that.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: To whom are they a loss—to the Crown or to individuals?

Lieut.-Commander Maydon: Undoubtedly to the Crown.
If one translates the same sum of money into a capital sum, it is roughly equivalent to £1 million. That would go quite a little way towards building a new headquarters building in some more convenient position.
Next let us consider the evidence that we heard about miscellaneous bags and packages. It is estimated that 26,000 travel up and down per year, a rough average of 72 per day, and one must remember that a great many of them have to be accompanied by a naval courier because security requires it. This is an enormous waste of time, of energy, and, as we heard from many who gave evidence, a loss of efficiency.
We also heard evidence briefly from senior officers and senior civil servants from the other Defence Service Ministries of what it would mean to them if they were so widely geographically separated one Department from another. They were unanimous that efficiency would be lost.
If one turns next to one half of this organisation—the organisation in Bath but very much the same applies to London—one finds that there are six separate sites, five major ones and one very small one. We heard that there is perhaps an intention that the Ministry of Works might centralise the five or six establishments at Foxhill on the hills above Bath. Before we consider spending that amount of money on local concentration, which is undoubtedly desirable in the interests of efficiency, will it not be better to have a really good look at the possibilities and the desirability of concentrating in or near greater London?
There are those who might try to make an example of the Hydrographers' Department, but ever since I was in the Navy I seem to remember that this was out on a limb by itself and suffered no lack of efficiency by being so. The hydrographer's work is such that it can probably be better carried out in a relative vacuum, free from influences from other Departments.
It has been said by the Admiralty in its reply that this concentration which we recommend is contrary to Government policy since the war. Would not it be a very good thing to look most closely at that Government policy to see if the reasons for it are still as valid as when that policy was first formulated?
I agree that in the search for perfection the best is very often the enemy of the good, but I contend that the eventual aim of the Admiralty should be to concentrate its headquarters in two places only. First, in Whitehall—for traditional reasons, I think that it would be a great pity to give up that site alongside Admiralty Arch and facing Trafalgar Square—and, secondly, the other half of the headquarters in some site in the Greater London area.
We know that very shortly the lease of Queen Anne's Mansions will fall in and that the Admiralty will have to find accommodation elsewhere to house the departments now there—not a very large section of the Admiralty, but still considerable. While thought is being given to that, thought should also be given to the much wider issue of even greater concentration.
It will entail acquiring and building on a suitable site somewhere in the Greater London Area. That will undoubtedly be a very expensive project, but when one looks at it in the light of the money that will be saved, directly and indirectly, and the far greater efficiency that will result, I am sure that that is a desirable policy which must be followed.
In the meantime, for the short-term, I hope that consideration will be given to concentrating on one or two sites in the Bath area without spending too much money on developing and increasing accommodation on those sites, if such a thing is possible. I hope that the Civil Lord will give great thought to this problem of concentration and to the underlying policy directives which have apparently conflicted with it in the past. I do not think they are valid any longer and I am sure that they should be looked at.

7.10 p.m.

Mr. Harry Gourlay: I think it will be agreed that the experiment of debating Select Committee Reports in the House is proving to be a success. Today we have had an interesting, informative and at times humorous debate. My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) said that he would have liked an illustrated Report. I am not sure whether he wanted to have pictures of

the surplus admirals or the surplus ships of the Fleet. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Commander Pursey) said, with regard to Admiralty expenditure, that the Government had their priorities all wrong, especially in respect of cuts in the social services. I agree with his remarks about the Geddes Axe, but that aspect of policy is outside the terms of reference of the Select Committee, and I cannot pursue it further now.
I join with other hon. Members in paying tribute to the long and efficient service of Sir John Lang, and I sincerely hope that he will be granted health to enjoy a long and happy retirement. It is appropriate for me to acknowledge the courteous and efficient manner in which the hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) piloted the Sub-Committee through its deliberations, and I would also like to pay tribute to the Clerk of the Sub-Committee, who did a power of work behind the scenes and has given the Sub-Committee yeoman service.
When the Report was published last September there were screaming headlines in the evening newspapers to the effect that the Admiralty had received a broadside, but having read the observations of the Admiralty upon the recommendations of the Select Committee I am not certain that the broadside has been as effective as some of those delivered by the Navy in the past. Six recommendations have been accepted without question but ten important ones have received only qualified acceptance, couched in almost meaningless language.
Although, since 1953, there has been a reduction in total numbers at Headquarters of about 12 per cent., the number of Naval personnel has risen from 702 in 1953 to 717 in 1960–61. The effect of this upon the Estimates has been considerable, since the cost of the naval staff is more than one-sixth of the salary bill for the Admiralty complement of 9,510 persons borne on Vote 12.
In replying to Recommendation No. 4 the Admiralty states that it is
always considering the extent to which civilians can be employed in posts hitherto manned by naval officers".
and refers to recent studies it has made of the subject. That is encouraging, so far as it goes, but the Sub-Committee was concerned to see that the number of naval


personnel at headquarters had actually increased by 25 between 1959–60 and 1960–61. In fact, we discovered that the ship department, in accordance with instructions from the Admiralty, had been engaged since 1949 in a policy of navalisation. Thus, two-thirds of the civilian professional officers of the electrical branch were to be replaced over a period of two years with naval personnel of lieutenant and commander rank. It was admitted in evidence that this policy would undoubtedly increase the cost of the department, without necessarily increasing its efficiency.
As the hon. Member for Mitcham said, there is an apparent discrepancy between the evidence given to the sub-committee on the subject of the control exercised over naval numbers at headquarters and the reply of the Admiralty. The point was conceded by the Permanent Secretary that he had not got "an absolute control" over naval numbers, and he said,
We have to make sure we can carry the particular Member of the Board with us every time.
Sir John Lang added that he was sure that exactly the same situation existed at the Air Ministry and the War Office, but this did not quite agree with the evidence which we took from those Departments.
How can we expect the numbers of naval staff at headquarters to decline if no single person is responsible for keeping them down? Even if the same situation exists at the other Ministries—about which there is some doubt—that does not answer the question.
The Select Committee was confronted with a situation in which there were 700 naval officers at headquarters, costing £1,800,000 per annum, whose term of duty there was only about two years. It is depressing to remark that when the Estimates Committee last examined the Admiralty, in 1929, it recommended that these tours of duty should be extended, but nothing was done. We were informed that the Admiralty had now come to the conclusion, reached by our predecessors over thirty years ago, that two years was totally inadequate for someone to learn a new job and to be of any real use. We made it quite clear in our Report that we recognised that the Admiralty has to take into account factors other than the efficiency and economy of the

headquarters when determining the tours of duty of naval officers, but that the trend must be in the direction of longer periods for the most senior officers, especially those in charge of material departments. I hope that the careful consideration which the Admiralty promises to give to this aspect of the matter will not occupy another thirty years, but will be at a speed more in keeping with the jet age in which we now live.
We were also concerned with the fact that some directors-general of departments were naval officers. The weapons department and the dockyard and maintenance department, for example, each has a naval officer as its director-general. As we said in our Report, it seemed to us that what was frequently called "consumer experience"—which is obviously extremely important—could be injected at rather lower levels, so that there could be greater continuity in the top management. I cannot believe that a man who for only two or three years holds the senior position in an important material department, responsible for the expenditure of many millions of pounds every year, can be expected to exercise a strong personal control over the work of that Department.
It is regrettable that the Admiralty has made no direct reference to this important matter in its reply. Even if the tours of duty are increased the principal argument is not affected. The Director-General of Ships Department, Sir John Sims—of whose recent knighthood we were delighted to hear—has been in that department for virtually the whole of his career, and it is notable that there has been a most praiseworthy and successful endeavour to keep down numbers there. Furthermore, the machinery which Sir John has evolved to keep a strict check upon expenditure appears to be working very well. As we stated in paragraph 23 of our Report:
a lack of continuity and experience at the top and senior levels of a Department is not conducive to efficiency and control, and requires immediate consideration.
I hope that the Civil Lord will state that this point has been taken by the Admiralty. It is one of the Committee's most important recommendations.
I conclude with some observations on the Naval Staff divisions, to which we made reference in paragraphs 33 and 34


of our Report. The reply of the Admiralty is reasonably satisfactory, and we can see that the changes may be "evolutionary rather than revolutionary". The Naval Staff was conceived as a result of the violent and well-merited criticisms of the Admiralty machine at the beginning of the 1914–18 war. The system which was evolved is clearly a great improvement upon the pre-1914 arrangement, but I wonder whether the time has not now come for a fundamental reappraisal of the position. We recommend a reduction in numbers not only for economy's sake but for the sake of efficiency, and I am sure that at least some of the detailed work being undertaken by the divisions at the moment might be taken over by other sections of the Admiralty. I hope that this suggestion will at least be considered by the Civil Lord.

7.20 p.m.

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing): I think I should start by thanking the Select Committee for the constructive and important proposals which it put forward and upon the painstaking way in which it collected evidence. My noble Friend and I are grateful for the nice remarks made about the speed of the Admiralty's reaction. I hope that we have set an an example by producing a reply in eight weeks to so long a report. I think that shows that our organisation can move swiftly and efficiently to produce what Parliament needs in order to have a debate of this sort.
Before turning to the general review of the task and the size of Admiralty headquarters I wish to add my congratulations to the many received by my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) both on the way he conducted the Select Committee and also on the speech with which he opened this debate. His own congratulations and those of many others will be appreciated by Sir John Lang. I shall have another opportunity in the Navy Estimates debate so I shall not add my congratulations to the many Sir John has received this evening.
The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) rather pinned the size of Admiralty headquarters on to the lack of a definite policy. I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to wait until

the publication of the Explanatory Statement by my noble Friend. It will come out with the Navy Estimates in a very few days' time, and there he will see what he wishes to see set out in clear and distinct terms.
Having spent many of my years in industry, some in State corporations and a number in uniform, I have the impression that they all have one common factor. Wherever one works there is abuse of head office or headquarters. There may be "No love for Johnny", but there also seems to be no love for headquarters by those outside. I remember that twenty years ago Hitler and his associates were said to be extremely ingenious in making sure that their bombs never hit the head offices in Whitehall. As I was there at the time I received that remark with mixed feelings.
The task of Admiralty headquarters is much wider than that of a normal headquarters. Unlike other headquarters staffs Admiralty staffs have to design, develop, supervise and produce new ships and many new weapons. This task is superimposed on the normal task of the Air Ministry and, also, until the Ministry of Supply was split up, the task undertaken by the War Office. Bearing this in mind it is worth while looking at the proportion of people in our headquarters. In round figures there are 10,000 controlling 140,000 civilians and about 100,000 uniformed personnel. This is to say nothing of the much greater number producing material on our behalf in private industry. It means that we have about 4 per cent. at our headquarters and 96 per cent. in the field or in the fleet. I am not saying that there is not room for improvement and I am not being complacent about this or about the need to cut down the size of headquarters still further, but I think that these figures put the facts in perspective.
Looking at it from the monetary aspect, 2¾ per cent. of the total budget is spent on headquarters. I have not been able to get comparable figures of great industrial firms but I should not think that our percentage is grossly out of proportion, bearing in mind the factors which I outlined earlier. I wish to underline to those outside—every hon. Member in the House will know it very well—that about 30 per cent. of the


staff at Admiralty headquarters are in the professional or technical departments and the majority of them are engaged in developing and designing new ships and equipment. This means that 3,000 people out of the total, mainly at Bath—and this covers the Director-General of Dockyards and Maintenance—are concerned with design, development and ship repairs and refitting, or the control of those last two functions. I think that the Select Committee recognised the tremendous part which scientific progress has played and the repercussions which it has had on our naval "hardware". I do not think it is so generally recognised that in the last ten years we have equipped 316 new ships for the fleet and, what is perhaps even more important, these new ships cover about twenty new designs. That, of course, absorbed the greater part of the effort of our design staff. To answer the criticism of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton, in the same time we have made a cut in the number of flag officers at headquarters of 25 per cent. during the last five years.
It would seem that part of the "occupational therapy" stimulated in the first instance by Professor Parkinson is to compare strength at Admiralty headquarters and strength ashore with the strength of the fleet. But in so many cases this exercise does not result in comparing like with like. I have seen little criticism of industry, because it has more salaried workers and fewer semi-skilled workers on the factory floor. This results from the tremendous capital investment which modernised industry puts behind each employee in terms of horsepower. In the Navy we have done much the same in terms of the hitting power which is put behind each rating.
When we are comparing present figures with pre-war figures I do not think it should be forgotten that we have done the following three things. First, we have expanded our research and development from a mere £750,000 before the war to over £19 million, and all this has to be supervised and controlled. Secondly, we have entirely taken over the Fleet Air Arm from the Air Ministry, and, thirdly, we have greatly developed the rô le and the versatility of the Royal Marines. There was no Commando Force at all before the war. All this has

to be controlled and the men have to be equipped.
None of these things shows up if one studies a table or if one quotes the figures of the ships in the fleet. Nor do all the seventy ships in the Royal Fleet Auxiliary which play an increasingly vital part in enabling our fleet to carry out substantial operations over great distances. There is a further aspect of the work which is increasing enormously—the help given to the fifteen new Commonwealth Navies and foreign navies. In Appropriations-in-aid there is a total of £60 million which is largely in payment for the services we have rendered on behalf of others. That may help to strengthen the Commonwealth Navies, but it also adds to the strength of headquarters.
Having said that, I do not want the House to think that my noble Friend and I are for a moment being complacent about the numbers at headquarters. With the support of our civilian and Service advisers, we are determined to continue our efforts to reduce these numbers along the lines indicated in the Committee's Report and in our reply. This debate gives me an opportunity to give further information, a further progress report, on what has happened since we printed our reply.
The first recommendation, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham, by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett) and by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. Gourlay), was regarding the power of the Permanent Secretary. Perhaps I can clear up any misunderstanding which may have arisen from the evidence. There seems to be an impression that the power of the Secretary of Admiralty over naval numbers is weaker than that of his opposite numbers at the War Office and the Air Ministry. I can assure the House that that is not the case. He has the sole power over the secretariat branches. Over the departments controlled by another superintending Lord, he or his establishment officer must be consulted in every case where civilian or naval officers are involved. Naturally, he tries to work to an agreed solution with the superintending Lord but just as in other Service Departments he has the right to take to my right hon. and noble Friend, any


problem about which he and the superintending Lord disagree. This is what happens in practice and I hope that this statement will do something to clear up any uncertainty which exists as a result of the Committee's examination.
I now turn to the general questions concerning manpower. There were a number of them. The first was on civilianisation, which was mentioned by a number of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy. I repeat that it is our policy to employ naval officers only where their experience and qualifications make that essential. A Committee is in being to study the balance of naval and civilian officers in the naval service as a whole, and that study will continue. They have prepared a new scheme to stimulate the employment of retired naval officers as civilians in posts requiring naval experience. This scheme is at present being considered by the Board of Admiralty.
I should like to emphasise what we are already achieving. The number of naval officers in headquarters will be reduced by 28 in the current financial year and by a further 45 in the next financial year. Roughly, half the reduction is as a result of civilianisation. This is not a pious hope, but a policy, and I think I have shown that it is a policy which is bearing fruit.
Recommendation 8 was dealt with by my hon. Friend in his opening speech. We were asked to carry out a detailed review of the chain of command and the definition of senior posts in the Admiralty. We have now discussed this with the Treasury, and have agreed that such a review should have an agreed programme covering in the first instance six large units in the first year. This will be concerned with the three Directorates General serving the Second Sea Lord, the Ship Department, the Dockyards and Maintenance Department, and lastly, the Hydrographic Department. We are discussing with the Treasury an examination of the naval staff which the Treasury would like to undertake as part of a wider programme covering staffs of all three Service Departments.
I hope the House will see that not only did we state that we were going to consult the Treasury, but that we have started on a programme. These reforms

will be initially at Assistant Director level with salaries of about £2,500 a year, but we hope to extend this later.
I turn to Recommendation 7, dealing with the tour of duty of serving officers, which was (mentioned by several hon. Members. The Select Committee recommended that the two-year tour of duty by senior officers should be lengthened. Of course, there are a number of very important officers who already serve much longer than two years in the Department—for instance, the First Sea Lord and the Controller and in the naval staff, a sphere which particularly concerned the Select Committee, the Director of Naval Intelligence. We have already said that the tour of duty of naval officers in the material departments will be extended. We have explained to the Committee some of the real difficulties in the way of further extension, and I shall not enumerate them again. We are doing as much as we can to extend the length of appointments, particularly at the more senior levels, in departments other than the material departments. Our aim is that naval officers should normally serve about three years, although, and I think the Committee recognised this, for officers in the post list this will not always be possible. It is essential for them to have the widest possible experience.
Recommendation 9 was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham, my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Pitman) and the hon. and gallant Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Commander Pursey) and deals with our organisation and methods. The hon. and gallant Member, in a short but amusing speech, referred to what used to happen. I can assure him that I shall deal with the points he made about medals. Perhaps I can drop him a line on that in view of the pressure of time. I entirely agree with the importance stressed in the Report of the Committee and in the speeches this evening of the need to improve and strengthen our organisation and methods branch.
We said that we were reviewing this matter. We have now completed the review and have agreed to expand the staff from 21 to 27. This will include two new officers working in the punched card and automatic data processing


section. My hon. Friend the Member for Rye (Mr. Godman Irvine) said that our methods were outdated, but we pride ourselves that in the 1920s we introduced our first punched-card system. At that time I was working in industry and we found this a very novel process in the 'thirties. The number of systems have been more than doubled in the last five years. We started early and have been progressing. The other four increased staff will be used to strengthen the O. & M. investigating teams investigating various facets of our work.
The Committee were a little critical of the experience in the O. & M. department. It was suggested that we ought to consider sending staff into industry so that people serving us should get industrial experience. Perhaps I should point out that the excellent courses run by the Treasury include lectures from a number of industrial firms in the lead in this work, so people going through those courses do not lack industrial advice at first hand. The hon. Member for Bath has been associated with this work since 1943. He will recognise that we have always had a very lively section in the Treasury to which we always look for a high standard of instruction and we certainly benefit enormously from their courses.
We were criticised a little for putting into our O. & M. section too much concentration on achieving efficiency of procedures and perhaps too little on staff saving. I still think that we have the right emphasis. The emphasis on efficiency in our organisation and methods should lead to staff saving, and if we keep our eye on this ball I think we are more likely in the long run to get results.
On the question of length of service, we endeavour to keep people for a reasonable number of years in this branch. The average of two or three years mentioned in the Report might well increase. I take the point that the branch needs the active and vital support of the top men, and I can assure hon. Members that it shall have that. It has had it in the past and it shall have it in the future. On the question of working by invitation, which was criticised by some hon. Members, I think it is best to go to a department by agreement, and for the department to

explain its task and to have suggested to it methods for improving its way of carrying it out. It is much better to get an invitation than to impose a solution.
I should point out that although organisation and methods deals with office working, this does not mean that we neglect work study in the fleet and in the civilian industrial side of our department. Nor do we close our minds to the use of naval officers on O. and M. when working in offices where naval work is important. That point was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bath.
I now turn to the costing section. This section does not work by invitation but is directed from above. On this I speak with some first-hand knowledge, because, as chairman of the Finance Committee, it has been my task from time to time to direct the work in different ways. A tremendous amount of work is done by this section, although I concede that it is a small section. In the first three years of its life, it concentrated on the Home Air Command. It is generally thought that the tremendous savings made in that command were made in large part as a result of the costing section. It was also closely associated with the Way Ahead Committee.
At the same time it began a systematic investigation of costs of shore establishments. The most fruitful field was the training establishments. We are looking at the training establishments in the Finance Committee. The section is within sight of putting costings on a routine basis so that annual reviews can be carried out largely, not by outside staff, but by the staff of the training establishments itself. We believe that people on the job should know about the different elements of costing and that that is the best way to achieve savings.
The costing section is intended to supplement the existing costing organisation in the Admiralty. If it were the sole costing organisation, its staff would be inadequate, but that is far from the case. There is a large department under the Secretary—the Director of Expense Accounts—which covers all the fields of Vote 8 expenditure and particularly concentrates on the dockyard programme. The Principal Accountant also comes into costs of work done under contract for the Admiralty.
Despite its large fixed programme, the costing section has found time for an


impressive series of ad hoc studies required by the Board and policy-making staff. Thirty major studies have been completed in the past year, which is quite an achievement.
A number of hon. Members have mentioned the size of the naval staff. In our reply we have stated that the complexities of modern equipment and world politics make it difficult to forecast any large cut in naval staff, but we are tending towards establishing a smaller number of larger divisions. Hon Members will be interested to hear that since we published our reply we have started one such move by a decision to transfer work that is at present done by the Director of Naval Air Warfare to the Director-General of Aircraft. The work to be transferred is the progressing of staff requirements in relation to air material, largely liaison with the Ministry of Aviation. It has also been approved in principle that when this transfer of work has been completed there should be an amalgamation of D.A.W. with the Director of Naval Air Organisation and Training. We have other amalgamations in view. Naval staff will come under the scope of critical reviews of senior posts, that we are instituting under Recommendation 8, and that perhaps answers the hon. Member for Croydon, North-East and others.
I turn now to what is, perhaps, one of the most burning questions—that of headquarters. Of course, if we were starting afresh we would infinitely prefer one modem headquarters in London, but we have to recognise that not only have we a staff of about 4,700 at Bath but that if we add their dependents we get a total of about 10,000 people. It would, therefore, be a gargantuan task to move such a population to an entirely new consolidated headquarters in London. Moreover, one has to remember that such a move is against declared Government policy. That seems so impossible that we have concentrated on trying to make the best of the separation, and I want to tell the House what we have done in that direction.
We have tried to explore both orthodox and unorthodox methods. Two hon. Members have mentioned conference T.V. When the Report came out—I think that it was on the very day of its publication—I initiated a study of conference

T.V. It has two disadvantages. The first is cost. The Post Office tells us that to hire a cable would cost £40,000 a year. The second disadvantage is security. We can scramble the speech—that can remain moderately cheap and secure—but there is no cheap way of scrambling the picture, and if we are to have security that must be done.
We have also looked—and this shows much more promise—at the sound-only conference, and we think that this may well be brought into being. We have to examine the quotations we have received, and have also to decide how we could best lay out the system so that the various headquarters in Bath and London could use it to the best advantage. We shall certainly look further at the plan, but I am advised that, again, security is a tricky point. As one wants to transmit information on drawings and other sensitive matters we have to watch the security side rather closely.
Physical communications must surely be the answer for the immediate future. We have even looked at the possibility of a helicopter service, but as helicopters cost more than £100 an hour to hire I think that the Public Accounts Committee, and even the Select Committee, would be rather critical if we were to use them in that way at present.
We have seen British Railways, who, with our active encouragement, have arranged that the early morning train, the 7.57, which did not stop at Bath, now does stop there. That means that our Bath staff can leave just before 8 o'clock and be at the Admiralty by 10 o'clock. I would mention that this is the staff's time, not the Government's. They eat their breakfast on the train and read their papers on the train when, normally, they could be doing both at home. I do not, however, mention wear and tear. There are some good return trains, although we should like some to run a little later.
We have also taken up the possibility of reducing the time in the reverse direction as, after all, many people have to visit Bath. At the moment, the best trains take 95 minutes for the 107 mile journey, and we would wish that there were rather more trains of that calibre and rather less of those taking so much longer. I hope that I have shown that


we have thoroughly examined the different forms of communication.
We next come to consolidation. We should very much like to be able to achieve greater concentration of divisions at Bath. The majority there are on three sites separated by a few miles from each other. They work in one-storey war-time buildings, and these are quite good and have a number of years of useful life. For the last twelve years it has been the Admiralty's long-term aim to concentrate its divisions at Bath in one building. This remains our aim and would certainly he our intention when the present buildings approach the end of their life. I should like to mention that the one building would cost about £2¾ million, and that is a factor that cannot be ignored when the scheme comes to be considered.
At the same time, we can consolidate in London. We are working out a new development of our office accommodation in London, which arises primarily from the need to move out of Queen Anne's Mansions. This building does not lend itself to efficient office administration. It was constructed as a block of flats in 1888. We are, therefore, moving from Queen Anne's Mansions a number of our departments. These and others comprising some 1,800 staff are to be housed in the new Empress State Building at Earls Court. They will include some 200 staff from Pinner. This will be accomplished by 1962. The Empress State Building is designed specifically as a modern office block and should increase the efficiency of our office procedure.
The last criticism comes under the heading "Departments should be together". We were told, "If you have to be in two places, it would be logical to bring the two halves of one Department together". We have the importance of this recommendation very much in mind. The Select Committee particularly drew attention to the fact that the Radio Division of the Weapons Department was in London while the other main divisions were in Bath. As we promised, we have looked at this again and have decided

that the balance of advantage lay in moving the Radio Division—some sixty strong—from London to Bath, and this is planned to be done next year. With this change the departments of the four Directors'-General will be compactly sited; the Aircraft Department in London, the Ship Department at Foxhill, Bath, and the Weapon and Dockyard Departments at Ensleigh, Bath. This was the object of the Recommendation.
Perhaps I may be permitted to summarise our actions and intentions. Altogether, we have accepted ten of the thirteen Recommendations and in our Reply we have shown that further action was to be taken on a number of points. I have tried to give the House a frank report on the progress made to date. We are just as keen as the House to reduce staff wherever possible, as our record shows over the last eight years, when Vote 12 numbers have come down from 10,744 to 9,510.
In the last three years the rate of reduction has, I concede, been much lower because of new design and production commitments. We have reduced our numbers by only 230, but we do not intend to slacken our efforts to do our level best to make reductions in Vote 12 posts. Whether we succeed will depend on the new tasks we have to undertake, but we shall certainly try to reduce staff by 500 persons—over 1 per cent. per year—over the next five years. This will not be easy. Our nuclear submarine programme is only just beginning, and extra design staff will be essential. Only this afternoon I have been urged to increase—and have shown how we are increasing—the numbers in Organisation and Methods. There is equal pressure elsewhere. Extra demands will have to be offset by bigger cuts but it is the measure of our resolve that we publicly announce our intention to go on cutting, and we will do our damnedest to hit the target.

Mr. R. Carr: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

HISTORIC BUILDINGS AND ANCIENT MONUMENTS

7.50 p.m.

Mr. James MacColl: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof.
this House takes note of the Fifth Report from the Select Committee on Estimates in the last Session of Parliament relating to Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments, and of the Sixth Special Report of the Estimates Committee.
Today comes in the middle of a period of very great Parliamentary stress when we have been marshalling our forces and the parties have been hurling themselves at each other. Today we have a brief pause, and I feel rather like a twittering songbird on the field of battle. We pause for a moment to draw our attention to something which by no stretch of the imagination can be regarded as having in it any partisan passion or the drama of great battle, but which is at the same time a subject that should be of very great interest to the House. This is not for the reason which one of my hon. Friends put to me, when he asked who better to discuss it because most of the people looking down upon this Chamber regarded Members of Parliament as ancient monuments in an historic building. That is not the main reason why I think this is a matter of considerable interest. It is a small vote of just over £1,400,000, and I am proposing to deal with it in three main sections which are covered in the Report of the Committee.
Before I come to look in some detail at the Report and its recommendations, I should like to say that the main Department which came under our examination was the Department presided over by the noble Lord at the Ministry of Works. I personally and, I think, a good many Members of the Sub-Committee, were very much impressed by this. Here was a subject which has no partisan interest but which did arouse very great and deep feeling, involving the views of many people who are accustomed to think and feel in absolutes. They are not the kind of people who like being told that there is no Santa Claus, or who like being told that there is no more money in the Vote.
Yet, in all the evidence that we had, and we went into a great deal of evidence, I do not think anybody, either the amenity societies or the various people who were in negotiation with the Ministry, had anything but a good word for the courtesy of the Ministry, and, on the whole, the prudent judgment of the Ministry and its ability to maintain standards of high scholarship, which is not something which we normally associate with a Government Department. As I say that, may I also particularly say that of the many people who guided and educated us, perhaps nobody was of more interest than the Chief Inspector, Mr. Baillie Reynolds, who, since the Report was published, has retired. I should like to mention that, in his contributions, he not only made many of us who were workaday Members of Parliament, with little knowledge of these subtleties, widen our education, but struggled further to maintain a very high standard of scholarship which made the Ministry of Works approved over a very wide area. It is against that background that I ask the House to look in some detail at some of the points that we have discussed in our Report.

The Minister of Works (Lord John Hope): On a matter of fact, I should like to remind the hon. Gentleman that he is in error. Mr. Baillie Reynolds has not retired yet, I am glad to say. He will do so very soon, but not yet.

Mr. MacColl: But he is going to retire. I read in The Times that he was going to do so.
The first section of the Report deals with what one calls recording, listing and scheduling. The second deals actually with the ancient monuments, and the third with the grants to historic buildings. The first section, dealing particularly with recording, listing and scheduling, covers a much wider field than the noble Lord's Department, and it is one of the things that very much bewildered me. One finds it very difficult to steer one's way between the various different bodies, all apparently doing comparable work in a comparable field.
There was, first of all, the Royal Commission, and, in this House in an Adjournment debate on 24th May last, the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West


(Mr. McLaren) drew attention to what he regarded as the slow work of the English Royal Commission on Historical Monuments. The Royal Commission is charged with the duty of making inventories of the monuments and the construction connected with or illustrative of the contemporary culture, civilisation and conditions of life of the people from the earliest times. The next body we come to is the National Buildings Record, which is charged with making a comprehensive record with photographic and measured drawings of buildings of historical interest. Then, we come to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government in England and the Department of Health in Scotland, which are responsible for listing all buildings of architectural or historical interest. Finally, there is the Ministry of Works, which is responsible for scheduling ancient monuments which are buildings of historical, architectural, traditional, artistic or archaeological interest.
It seems to us that there was very little reason why these bodies should not tread very much on each other's toes, except a certain amount of common sense, and, I am sure from a conscientious attempt to avoid duplication. We felt that the problem was one of much complexity, and except for this rather vague feeling of aiming at harmony, there was no real reason why all these different bodies might not in fact arrive at one place independently to carry out their functions, while in another area nobody at all need be doing any work. A great deal of work has to be done in the actual work of recording, and we felt that whatever we decided about the division of responsibility between Ministries, at any rate a very considerable effort should be made to make sure that the ground was divided up between different people so that as much as possible of the area was covered.
I know that the Treasury has been having a working party on this subject. Any hon. Members who serve for any length of time on the Estimates Committee are well aware of finding out, whenever they put their finger on some tender spot, there is always the Committee of Inquiry which just happens to be dealing with it and one rather gets the feeling sometimes that half the Departments of the Government are investigating the other half. I should like to hear if the

noble Lord can speak on behalf of the Financial Secretary and tell us how that Working Party is progressing. We attach a lot of importance to this, and we are anxious that it should not be used as a mere convenient excuse for evading these rather important questions.
Analogous to these different Departments are the different advisory bodies which in varying forms advise the Department on the work to be done in this very specialised field. There are a great many of these bodies, and we discovered a very great duplication of members. We found the same people on different committees using their particular "know-how" in a sort of stage army. We mention in our Report that there were fourteen members sitting on three bodies, fourteen members on two bodies and that each committee had about half its members shared with some other body. Very good reasons are given for this state of affairs, but we all feel that something must be wrong. This should be looked at. The time of very important people is being wasted. That again is being inquired into by a working party. I hope that we shall hear a little more from the noble Lord about what is happening.
I Shall not attempt to give detailed definitions of ancient monuments. If hon. Members cannot follow what I am saying, I advise them to read our Report, because we deal with these matters in great detail. What strikes us about ancient monuments is what a great national interest they are. Not only are they an incomparable heritage from past history, things, of incalculable value to our national traditions, but they have a real educational value as an attraction to visitors, both visitors from other parts of the country and from abroad. We feel that more should be done to make them attractive so that visitors will go to look at them.
The Ministry can deal with only a small proportion of the total number of ancient monuments. It can schedule them to prevent them being destroyed, but that does not prevent them from deteriorating. The only ones the Ministry can deal with are the valuable ones, the ones which the Ministry takes under its guardianship.
We think that there is a very great need here to try to arouse local interest.
There is a danger of the relationship becoming one where the Ministry produces the money and everybody else—local authorities, amenity bodies and others—sit around and get as much as they can. That must not be allowed to happen. If we are to preserve our ancient monuments, we must do much to arouse local interest in this local heritage.
I am not thinking of the great local authorities. Many county councils have done much to co-operate with the Ministry. However, the Ministry could do much more to persuade parish councils, for example, to feel pride if in their remote places they have monuments of historical interest. Such bodies should be persuaded to keep monuments in good condition by exercising loving care. They could cut the grass and do the job much more thoroughly than the Ministry in Whitehall, with its regional and local organisations, can do it. We stress that there should be an attempt to secure more co-operation with local authorities.
I turn now to presentation, the problem of making ancient monuments attractive to visitors. We suggeste that one of the best ways to do this is to change the name. It is difficult to convey to the ordinary person that there can be anything attractive about an ancient monument when it is described in that way I am sure that this would not mean vulgarising the monuments. From the evidence we have it is clear that one of the great attractions of ancient monuments, particularly in this country, is that they are not vulgar and are not cheap shows. What people like to see is a well-presented, scholarly, carefully preserved monument of great intrinsic interest. They would resent having such a monument vulgarised.
On the other hand, to present it in that way is quite consistent with providing people with reasonable amenities when they visit ancient monuments. It is no use going out of our way to encourage people to visit monuments unless there are adequate facilities available on the sites. There are a number of places where there are more than 40,000 visitors a year, but there are no lavatories nor parking places. It is a little irresponsible to attract people to such places and not take steps to provide adequate facilities.
In contrast to that, we discovered that there were beautifully kept sites in glorious surroundings but rather off the beaten track, which very few people visited. We feel that more attention should be paid to encouraging visitors to visit those places and less effort used in other directions.
We visited some very attractive monuments on a hot summer's day when hon. Members were engaged in their legislative duties. We were happily at peace. We sat on beautifully cut grass on a spot of great natural beauty with the sun beating down on us. It was an enthralling day. That was all in addition to the intrinsic historical interest of the place. I am a rather simple Philistine person. I could not obtain a cup of tea or an ice-cream. Much could be done to provide people with elementary comforts without interfering in any way with the intrinsic value of the monuments.
We draw attention to the fact that there is a need to label monuments properly so that people will know what they are. We were told that an official had just been appointed who would start by seeing what could be done to make Scarborough Castle attractive.
For reasons with which I need not weary the House, I found myself in Scarborough last October. I took the opportunity of visiting Scarborough Castle. I sampled both the lavatory and the refreshment accommodation. I found them admirable, but there was no label on any part of the Castle. If a visitor did not buy a guide book, which was to be obtained not at the custodian's office but in the refreshment place, he could walk round Scarborough Castle without anything to tell him what it was or anything about it. We draw the attention of the House to the Ministry's lack of imagination in this respect.
On the other side, we mention the ancient monuments rather off the beaten track. We feel that the fundamental duty resting upon the Ministry is to preserve a monument for posterity even if it is in a remote place. A monument can be preserved without there being a great deal of what I call archaeological "bull", with much money being spent of having the grass cut so that it looks like a lawn at somebody's manor house.
That has no historical value, because when monuments were in their original state they did not have closely cut grass.
The reply of the noble Lord to our Recommendation No. 4 on this was rather prissy. We say on page xxix:
where many visitors cannot reasonably be attracted to a monument, the expenditure on the surroundings should be reduced.
The Minister said:
While the number of visitors to a monument is not, of course, the only consideration, the Minister will review expenditure on surroundings.
He has missed the point. Our point is that we want first to persuade people to visit places. If it is clear that people cannot be persuaded to do so, the Ministry should concentrate on the basic job of preservation and not merely have the grass cut in order to keep the custodian occupied.
In regard to historic buildings, as opposed to ancient monuments, the Government make grants to owners of houses for their maintenance or improvement. An extraordinarily difficult task is placed upon the Minister and his advisers. It is evtremely difficult to have a clear idea about what is a grant-worthy building and what is not. One may, on the one hand, give a grant in respect of what one would, with respect, call a beautiful white elephant, something of great aesthetic interest but which, in fact, even if money is spent on it, will not be of any great use to anyone. On the other hand, one way spend less money on a series of small houses which can be made quite comfortable places to live in. It is a very difficult test to apply.
The test which the Minister is charged to apply is, Are the buildings of architectural or historic interest? That is not to say whether they are convenient as residences. It is not to say even that they are beautiful. The difficulty comes in deciding how to spread the money over the various buildings. Who is, for instance, to assess the impact of Hawksmoor on Vanbrugh in the claims for preservation as against those in respect of Robert Adam? Should one preserve building X which, perhaps, shows Robert Adam at his worst—it is interesting to see how bad a great architect can be—or should one concentrate on other buildings which are not unique

in that way but which, as I say, can be made reasonable places in which to live?
The answer to those questions, of course, is that the only people who can do this are the Historic Buildings Councils. I think we should recognise that they endeavour to do a very good job in advising the Minister on the work he has to do. But they should remember, I think, that their object is the prevention of deterioration, not the glorifying of less important amenities. The test to be applied is certainly not the worthiness of the owner. There is here one of the paradoxes. An owner who is not particularly public spirited may neglect his own building, and as a result, qualify for a grant. Somebody else who is fully aware of the nature and value of his house and who acts accordingly will not need help. The object of the exercise is not to reward the owner but to preserve the building for posterity.
A great responsibility is placed on the chairmen of the Councils. They have to assess the value of the buildings. They have to assess the amount of money which the owners of the buildings can be called upon fo pay. They have to negotiate with them. I think it worth mentioning that we cannot always be sure that we shall have chairmen of the Councils as good as the present ones. I was worried about whether it was really wise to put so much responsibility on the three chairmen as under our present system we do, and I wondered whether we could have a system which was less dependent upon the knowledge, intuition and negotiating skill of the chairmen.
I come now to two points which I make for myself, not on behalf of the Committee. I felt that the whole business was a little casual. We are, after all. handing out substantial sums of money to private people to spend on their own houses. In some cases, particularly in some of the smaller houses, we are providing the owners with a very nice little property at the end of the day which may well have a value on the market. When a Member comes to the House of Commons, he has to make a statutory declaration to a magistrate that he has not spent more than a certain amount of money in election expenses. If he makes a false statement, he may be prosecuted. No such statement is


required of the owner of a house. In many cases, I think, the owner of a house could be asked to produce his Income Tax return. Of course, neither the Ministry nor the Council could ask for that, but the owner himself could, I think, be asked to produce it. The matter needs looking into. Should we tighten up some of these rather obvious precautions?
I come now to two matters where I criticise the Minister's reply. The first is loans. We felt that there ought to be powers to enable the Minister, particularly when a grant is being made for a house which will be a nice little property at the end of the day, to provide for the repayment of grant if the property is sold at a profit. The Minister replied very much to this effect, "If we are bringing in legislation, we shall consider whether that is desirable". I press him on that. That reply was a little vague. In my view, what we suggest would be a very valuable safeguard which, though it need not always be used, should be available.
I quarrel with the Minister also on the subject of retrospective grants. Some of us with local government experience were a little alarmed to find that retrospective grants were being paid where work had already been ordered. The thing which we all learned at our town clerk's knee, if not at our mother's knee, was that if someone asked a Ministry for a retrospective grant he was slapped down at once. We cannot see why at this stage it should be necessary to have retrospective grants at all. It was all right in the early stages when people did not understand the machinery, but there is no need for it now and we think it ought to stop.
I have tried to pick out some of the salient points rather than go through the subject in detail because I know that there are other hon. Members who will, no doubt, be able to fill in some of the gaps.
I wish to bring to the attention of the House the extraordinary situation created by three decisions, one of which was forced on the Council, the others being its own. I am here talking about the English Council. The first was the decision to spend such a very large amount of its total resources on the Oxford

Colleges. The other two were the similar decisions in respect of Castle Howard and Wardour New Castle. The decision on the Oxford Colleges was a Government decision and the Council, had no choice in the matter, but the amount involved, although comparatively small when related to the total amount which the Oxford Colleges are costing, is crippling to the work of the Council. It has been made to put a ceiling on its other grants and houses of considerable value which are worth preserving have had to be dropped from the list.
The Castle Howard case is a much more interesting one and, in some ways, more difficult. Everyone from whom we took evidence, I think, agree that Castle Howard ought to be preserved and the Council was doing a very important job in preserving it. I do not question that, but I wish to point to some of the implications. The Castle Howard expenditure includes grants for the mausoleum, grants for the temple, and grants for statues in the park. These are not dwelling-houses. They are not places in which any one lives. We were told by experts of unchallengeable authority that they were part of the mise en scé ne —the general set up—and that we should not get the value of the work of Vanbrugh or Hawksmoor unless they were kept.
The point is that the total grant on these external places is about £34,000. The vast majority of grants are much less than that. Only 2½ per cent. of all the repair grants amount to more than £20,000. Yet more than half as much again is being spent on other parts of buildings, which, as I say, are not "liveable in", and that is something which is open to a certain amount of comment and question. As I say, there is a dilemma between whether we should help the great house, the palace, or spend money on smaller and more practical buildings. If assistance is given in the case of small buildings we may provide a very useful disposable asset.
Another problem to which I wish to draw attention is regional variation. It seemed to us that the standards for grant in Scotland were different from those in England. The reason given was that, whereas in England Elizabethan and Tudor buildings were two a penny, in Scotland and Wales they were rare. Therefore, buildings which we


would not need to preserve in parts of England we need to preserve in Scotland and Wales. It is a matter of judgment and I merely draw attention to it, but, if we are to have that standard, should not we have varied regional standards within one country?

Dr. Alan Thompson: My hon. Friend says that it is a question of judgment, but it is also a question of historical fact that in Scotland there are fewer great houses and many more small buildings of historical importance. As my hon. Friend knows, the Industrial Revolution swept away many small towns, and deprived Scotland of much of its architectural heritage.

Mr. MacColl: The resources are very limited, particularly by the overall ceiling resulting from the expenditure on the Oxford Colleges and Castle Howard. If we are to have different standards between one country and another, I ask whether we should not have different standards between one region and another inside England. In other words, there may be parts of the North of England—here I can declare some interest—which ought to be preserved as against some of the great palaces of the South, although I appreciate that Castle Howard is in Yorkshire, which rather spoils the uniformity of my argument.
I have endeavoured to go quickly over some of our Report to bring out some salient points and to underline them for the benefit of the House. It is valuable that the Select Committee on Estimates should have turned its attention to a subject like this, because it raises some important administrative questions and some very fascinating problems of judgment and policy about what we should do with a limited sum of money. Although in general I would say that we were very delighted to learn of the great respect in which the Ministry is held, this is a case where there is probably room for review of the position. As it is about seven years since the 1953 Act was passed, it is a happy moment to be able to look at the matter now on the basis of this Report.

8.25 p.m.

Mr. W. F. Deedes: My first task should be to acknowledge the patient and perceptive work of the Select Committee under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr.

MacColl). As a member of the Historic Buildings Council for England—that was only one segment of the Select Committee's inquiry—I must say that I thought the hon. Gentleman's criticism appeared to be kindly and constructive. In any case, on this subject it is better to be criticised than ignored. I hope to touch on some of the points which the hon. Gentleman made—I would not presume to do more—as I go along. This is the first opportunity we have had of examining the Council's stewardship since the passing of the 1953 Act, which was eight years ago. I think that it might be profitable to touch on some of the wider problems which have confronted the Council and with which I know both the Select Committee and the House have some sympathy.
I think that it is generally understood that this £500,000 a year, which for accounting reasons was rather less in the current year and last year, is not spent on the greater physical or mental comfort of the owners of houses, but to preserve fine buildings which would otherwise be lost to the nation. That point has been stressed in the Annual Report and it was acknowledged by the Select Committee. It is to help neither the rich man nor the poor man. It is to help houses in distress.
It is not simply a question of saying, as some people would like us to say, "So-and-so is a rich man and therefore, regardless of the high quality of his house, he can afford to fend for himself and we must spend the money which we have on a dozen humbler objects". So-and-so may be rich, but when £20,000 or £30,000 may have to be spent on a house—the hon. Gentleman it clear that that is not an exceptional circumstance—he may well find that there are other courses open to him. If he abandons it or tries to demolish half of it or even puts up the rather forlorn "For sale" notice which is apt to hang for a long time on very large mansions, it may be entirely lost to the nation. In the end, the nation's loss is larger than his, because the house will last him only during his lifetime but it will last the nation longer.
I must add that it is not always the finest houses which are owned by the richest people, In those cases the share which the nation must give towards the work has to be proportionately higher.
It is very difficult, as the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, to strike a balance and there are other balances which have to be struck. There is certainly no quarrel with the Select Committee on the allocation between the wealthy and the not-so-wealthy. In the minds of some people it will always be a disturbing factor. The grant is not only payable on large houses. I would not presume to answer the hon. Gentleman on the question of Castle Howard, part of which came a little before my time. I am a recently joined member. If it is true that it took nearly a quarter of one annual budget, that reflects not only on the judgment which may have been exercised; it also reflects on the size of the Historic Buildings Council budget in relation to the national task. If the nation wishes a place like Castle Howard to be preserved that is something the Council is steward for and no more.
An attempt has been made throughout to strike a balance between the large and the small. Size is not the yardstick. Perhaps I may touch on a point that the hon. Gentleman made about accounting. It is tempting to feel that a tidier system of accounting might insure the taxpayer against all eventualities. I put on record my own feeling that if the records were scrutinised it would be found that over the years the taxpayer has not been robbed of very much over the administration of these houses. It was the larger houses that Parliament originally had very much in mind—I have refreshed my mind by looking at the debate in 1953. I think that the view of Parliament was reasonable, because, first, neglect will eventually involve much larger sums of money for the large houses, and, secondly, intrinsic merit apart, they are increasingly becoming centres of public attraction.
When one says that they are centres of public attraction, one must add that that sometimes goes for the ornamental gardens and temples which it is sometimes very easy to suggest have been over-endowed but which remain quite unique of their kind. I think that no other country in the world can offer anything quite like them. The third reason that big houses have always attracted more interest and attention is their widespread decay which would appear a slightly bigger reproach. It has been

compared with the decay of the monasteries in an earlier period.
Not the least important part of this policy, which has not been mentioned, is to keep in being as homes and not museums a diversity of oustanding buildings. I mention that, because it is at variance with what I thought in 1953. It then seemed to me dubious whether public funds should be used, not only to preserve outstanding architecture but to preserve a social state which had also become part of history. I thought that in 1953, although I did not say it. I was quite wrong. It is of the essence to keep as many homes alive as we can and not a handful of facades. The family enters into this, and very often when a family has had a long history in one of these homes that is not the least part of the public interest, and rightly so.
Perhaps one should say a word about the limitations. As the Annual Reports have shown there have been heavy losses. For instance, there have been houses for which in the end nothing could be done. Perhaps that has been the case a little more so of late, because the standard has had to be not less high than it was seven years ago in order to keep within the budget. Again, there were some buildings of all sizes which, I think I am right in saying, had reached, as it were, the standard but not that of the premier cru. When it came to the end of the year they were at least temporarily lost. One should not make too much of that. It is inevitable. Parliament did not set up the Historic Buildings Council believing that all deserving houses would automatically be preserved. Sometimes a big loss locally may act as a salutary shock to a district and remind them of the problems in hand. I do not think that it has ever been, and it never will be, an insurance scheme—I hesitate to use the word "haphazard", but it cannot be nearly as sure as that.
I will mention one ailment of these houses which has struck me very forcibly. I have no figures, and I do not suppose they are on record, but I have the impression that a disheartening amount of devastation is caused by dry rot. It is the cancer of old buildings, and once it starts it spreads like wildfire. It may often be the cause, as suggested by the Select Committee, of supplementary grants when a house is opened with a


view to doing something and the damage is discovered to be two, three or four times as bad as it was thought to be. There is then seemingly endless cost to try to complete the task which has been put in hand. This is often the legacy of dry rot. I would say to my hon. Friend that I often wonder whether we could save money—certainly we could save a great deal of heartache—by entering into some more intensive research, through some other Department such as the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, into this disease. Are we doing all we can to get to the root of it?
I should like to mention one other factor which I do not think was considered in 1953 but which enters largely into the work of the Council. As the House is aware, we are going through a period all over the country, of widespread rebuilding and rapid development, much more pervasive, noticeable and striking than seven or eight years ago. Some of it is good, some not so good. We shall never agree which is which, nor does it enter into the argument to judge it now. It seems to me, however, to be of growing importance that we should try to strike a balance between the best from the past and what is going up now.
The more that goes up, the more important it is to try to keep this somewhat tenuous balance with the past. We are dealing with a languishing asset. With the best will in the world, we cannot get over the fact that historic houses become fewer and fewer. Year by year, they become less. The new waxes and goes up and very often appears to eclipse almost everything else. It is not simply mournful, but it is a misfortune if the best of the nation's older houses fall into decay too rapidly while new buildings, new in idiom and materials, leap ahead.
There should be a relationship. I stress this for one particular reason. Just now, we have a generation of architects who, no doubt, for excellent reasons, owe or appear to owe very little to their immediate or distant past. I make no complaint about that. These influences go in cycles, however, and they are unpredictable. A generation or two ahead may feel the urge to look more closely at the craftsmanship in some of the houses that we are discussing this evening—the Queen Annes or the Georgians—if they are still there to be judged. We

here are ourselves the heirs to the Gothic tradition, although our predecessors before 1834 were not. These things have a way of coming round again. We should keep that in mind in relation to these houses.
I am not thinking only of architects. It is a condition of the grant which is made that the public should have access to these houses. That right is fairly firmly guarded by the Council and nobody should think otherwise. With the spread of the motor car, one must hope that the influence of the historic houses will become more pervasive and more persuasive in the public mind.
Surely, the advertising of fine craftman-ship, of symmetry and of proportion, qualities with which this generation is not overendowed, will not be without its influence on public taste. It is not necessary to go to Castle Howard or to Blenheim in order to see these qualities. They can be found in the local manor house, a group of cottages in a village, the corn exchange, the clock tower, and so on. These buildings are not only being kept for the generation to which they belong or for the generation which can now look at them. This is partly the answer to another point that was made constructively by the Select Committee about the thoroughness with which the repairs are undertaken.
The lease that is added to the life of these houses should not necessarily be measured, as we increasingly tend to measure so much, by the span of our own lifetimes. Preserving a home for its owner and preserving a home for the nation demand two slightly different standards of workmanship and planning at the outset. The second should be more thorough and more painstaking.
This is a matter of keeping a balance between the past and the present. This arises in another sphere which is destined to grow much more important—that is, local government. A great deal of the work which comes before the Council—I would think increasingly, but I have not been there long enough to judge—comes through local authorities. Not only major schemes like Bath, but many smaller schemes—the terraces, bridges, corn exchanges, town halls, and so on—and, of course, the larger mansions, have tended to come increasingly into the hands of the local authorities.
It is fair to say that the difference between the best and the worst of local authorities in this respect is striking. The best cherish their buildings as the most loving owner would. There are some who apparently find it difficult even to answer letters which offer tbean assistance. However, we must hope that the less good will join the virtuous.
Many of the largest local authorities are engaged in new developments on their own account. It is immensely important that they should be made to feel the influence of the best of the historic stuff and encouraged to give it a high place in the future as they see it for their town. All this amounts to quite a considerable responsibility on a budget of £400,000 to £500,000 a year. I am not saying that it is not enough. Everybody wants more for their own particular cause and otherwise economy in general, but at least in assessing the value of the work Parliament ought not to underwrite the size of the task.
It certainly has not diminished since 1953. It should not at least become any less and if, as the hon. Member for Widnes has suggested, loans should come along, I suggest they should come additionally and not, as they might become in the Treasury mind, as part of or a substitute for grants already made. Parliament ought not to be under any illusion about how far the Historic Buildings Councils through no fault of their own have fallen short of the ideas entertained in 1953.
The cost of work has increased by about 25 per cent. since then. The ability of owners to contribute has fallen from about £2 in every £3 to £1 in every £2. The slightly higher contributions called for by the very large houses come into a later period, and for accounting reasons which I need not elaborate the Council has had to work in the last two years on nearer £400,000 than £500,000. For that reason, it has had to introduce a waiting list and a stricter standard, with the result that it has had to accept some failures. The total sum spent on building in the last twelve months throughout the country may have been over £1,000 million. Therefore, this expenditure represents one-twentieth of 1 per cent., and with that we have to strike the best balance we can between ancient and modern, which lies at the

root of and certainly is not the least of the Council's purpose and work. It is for other people to judge whether the right balance has been struck.

8.43 p.m.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: I should like to join the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) on the way in which he introduced the discussion on this Report which provides us with the first opportunity to debate the matter since the three Historic Buildings Councils were set up under the 1953 Act. I should like to refer particularly to Recommendation 14 on page 5 of the Observations of the Minister of Works to which my hon. Friend referred. That Recommendation is:
There should be consultation between the Historic Buildings Councils for England, Scotland and Wales, with the aim of achieving common standards of 'grantworthiness'.
The Select Committee shows in the Minutes of Evidence which it has published that its members were quite rightly concerned about the variation of standard which appeared to exist among the three National Councils in this matter, but I hope that the Minister and the House will not lay undue stress on the supposed need to try to achieve a uniform standard in this connection.
The purpose of the 1953 Act was to arrest the decay and indeed to prevent the complete disappearance of buildings of outstanding historic or architectural importance in the three countries of Great Britain. It was expressly understood on both sides of the House and by the then Minister of Works that this object could be achieved only if Councils were set up to deal with the position in England, in Scotland and in Wales separately, and it was quite rightly recognised that the word "historic" in this case meant that which exemplified, and was significant of, the traditions and way of life of these national communities.
What is outstanding historically or architecturally in one country may not be so in another. In England we have great, indeed, magnificent. country houses which are expressions of social and historic movements in the 18th and 19th centuries. But match them against the Taj Mahal, for instance, and what are they?
If the criterion is to match the best of one country with the best of another, then I am afraid that we shall not make any progress. It is a fact that in Scotland and Wales, precisely because the movement of historic and social forces was different, there are no "Castle Howards". There are Elizabethan farm houses and cottages of intrinsic beauty and of significance in the context of the histories of these countries.
I strongly suggest that it will be a mistaken policy and, indeed, a dangerous one, to insist on a common standard between the three Councils. I welcome very much the phrasing of the Minister's observation on the important Recommendation 14. He says:
It is not considered that the achievement of identical standards is practicable or necessarily desirable. As the Select Committee themselves said, 'harmony' should be the aim.
We should all welcome the Harmonisation of technique and, indeed, criteria in relation to the process of making these grants. Anything like an arbitrary and, indeed, artificial common standard would militate against the very purpose of the Act, which was to ensure the preservation for posterity of what is historically significant and architecturally of importance in the context, as I have said, of the history and traditions of these countries.
I wish also to say something about the manner in which the three Councils have discharged their duties. Here, I must plead a kind of interest, as the hon. Member for Ashford took care to do. I, too, am a member of a Council—of the Welsh Council—and I feel bound to say that of all the committees on which one has served—and they have a way of increasing as the years go by—this, I think, is one of the most responsible and careful in its attitude towards recommending the expenditure of public money.
I think that is an assurance which might quite usefully and properly come from a member of a council, and I want to pay a tribute, as my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes did, to the three chairmen, and, in particular, as a Welsh Member, to the Chairman of the Welsh Council, Sir Grismond Philipps, a public servant of outstanding repute and a man distinguished in this field. I can assure the Minister, the Select Committee and

the House that not a penny has been spent under his leadership which has not been very much worth while.
I now wish to bring to the notice of the House one or two points which may serve, if it is necessary to do so, to justify this expenditure. The hon. Member for Ashford rightly emphasised that the amount spent in this regard throughout Great Britain is not great in amount or in percentage of the total spent on buildings of all kinds. He made a calculation and I have made a similar calculation and I find that towards this great work of preserving a priceless heritage for ourselves and our children we are devoting rather less than 05 per cent. every year of what we spend on building generally. That is the decimalisation of what the hon. Member said and I think that it matches the results of his calculations.
I conclude by commending three points to the Minister. First, it is important that there should be power to "open up" some of these buildings to ascertain the true extent of the work which is necessary. That is not an easy thing to do. It is a risk if one engages in heavy work in some of these old buildings where one is likely to do damage which may be irreparable, but I think that it is the general feeling in all three councils that it is necessary that power should be given to open up these buildings in order to know quite clearly at the very beginning how much work is likely to be necessary.
Secondly, I entirely agree that there should now be provision for recovering part or whole of a grant when an assisted building is sold. That is a reasonable provision, but I join with the hon. Member for Ashford in emphasising that it is not a question of assisting individuals or families to improve their property.

Mr. Ellis Smith: The Report says it is.

Mr. Roberts: That is not the object and that is not what happens. In the great majority of cases, the entire property is not rehabilitated. Features of a house or a building are preserved from disintegration, from disappearance, or the owner is prevented from botching the thing on his own. If the Councils


had intervened only to prevent innocent vandalism, they would have been justified on that account.
Thirdly, to remove any misapprehension—although I do not think that there is ground for misapprehension about the object or the effects of the grant in individual cases—the time has come when a system of extending low-interest loans in preference to grants in certain cases could well be examined. It may be found to be impracticable. It is often necessary to persuade the owners of historic buildings to allow the Council to look into the matter in order to assist in their preservation, but it is well worth examining the substitution of loan aid for grant aid in certain cases.
I join with those who have said that this is a worthy cause. It is a question of preserving a priceless heritage, the greatest heritage that the world has known—the visual expression of British civilisation as expressed in the architecture of England, Scotland and Wales. I hope that the House and the Ministry will continue to support the efforts of the three Councils and their admirable chairmen.

8.55 p.m.

Sir Charles Mott-Radclyffe: . I do not think there will be any doubt that the subject we are discussing is extremely important. Nor do I think there will be any dispute that, whatever party we belong to, we are under an obligation to do our best by our lights to preserve the buildings of historic and architectural importance that we as a nation have inherited.

Mr. Ellis Smith: In the same week that we increase the health charges.

Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: If we fall down on the task of maintaining the buildings of historic and architectural importance, we shall incur, and rightly so, the odium of the generations to follow us. There may be disagreement on how to achieve the goal. There are a number of other hon. Members who wish to speak tonight, and I do not want to detain the House unduly long. I will therefore confine my remarks to one aspect of the Report, namely, that dealing with the functions and the tasks of the Historic Buildings Council.
I join my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) in saying that we are all indebted to the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) and his Parliamentary colleagues for the extremely interesting, compact and lucid report they made, and for many of the recommendations in it. I also think that the House is indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford, to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) and his colleagues, and to all Members of the Historic Buildings Council for the impeccable way in which they discharge an extremely difficult task.
I do not expect all hon. Members to agree, but I am one of those who think that the difficulty which the Historic Buildings Council faces is that it has insufficient funds. I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works, or one of his predecessors—perhaps for accountancy purposes, I do not know—made a request to the Council which resulted in restricting its recommendations in the current year to about £400,000, when the recommendations it made in the year 1958–59 amounted to about £600,000.
This merely increases the awful dilemma of the Council. Should it spread the butter thickly over a few slices or should it spread it thinly over rather more slices? In other words, should it do a few really slap-up jobs, or should it undertake rather more work with the knowledge that, because of the financial ceiling imposed on it, the extra work is bound not to be so good as it would be if it concentrated on one, two or three main items? This dilemma was well brought out in the decision to which the hon. Member for Widnes referred, the decision to devote a large slice of the annual expenditure on Castle Howard. I believe that the decision to do a few jobs really well is the right one. I believe it is preferable, in spite of all the disadvantages, to doing a larger number of jobs less well.
The effect of the decision is this. The less money the Historic Buildings Council has at its disposal the higher must be the individual minimum standard to qualify for a grant. That leads to a further difficulty. As I see it, the Council can no longer even deal with houses


in what I might call the top category. It is obliged to confine itself to dealing with houses and other buildings which are in the cream of the top category.
This means that house after house and building after building which, by any normal yardstick, ought to be preserved, gradually falls into decay because the Council is unable to admit it to the super-category of buildings which it can afford to do anything about. Thus, a building of first-class architectural or historic importance becomes, within the necessary financial yardstick of the Council, a marginal building. The Council discharges its tasks and takes its decisions quite impeccably. Every decision it takes seems to me to require the judgment of Solomon. It is precisely because of that that I do not understand the comment of the Select Committee in paragraph 70 of the Introduction to its Report, when this extraordinary sentence appears:
Your Committee would expect that, now that the scheme has been in operation for some time and is well known, the great majority of owners who had accumulated a heavy backlog of repairs before 1953 would by now have received sufficient assistance to put their buildings in good order.
In order that a building may qualify for a grant the standard required by the Council now is a great deal higher than it was in 1953. The sum of money available is not vary much more, but the cost of repairs and maintenance, and everything else connected with the preservation of an ancient or historic building, has increased enormously. I can see no justification for the Select Committee's comment.
This difficult problem would seem to be rendered doubly difficult by the system of accountancy in the Treasury—which we all accept—by which you cannot transfer the unexpended portion of the day's ration to the next day. By that I mean that if a particular sum of money is unspent in one year the balance cannot be carried over to another year. I should have thought it was extremely difficult to estimate with any degree of accuracy the sum of money which the Council is likely to be able to spend in a given year on buildings of first-class importance for the simple reason that there must be a considerable time lag between the date on which an application for a grant is received and the date

on which, supposing the grant to have been approved, the work is completed.
I should have thought that in many cases it was almost impossible to judge exactly how long the work will take. Therefore, able and fully qualified though the Historic Buildings Council may be, I do not see how they can estimate with a reasonable degree of accuracy what their expenditure will be within one financial year. There is a strong case for my right hon. Friend's pressing the Treasury for a grant to be given to the Council not on an annual basis but on a five-year basis, just as the Treasury does in relation to University grants and the British Council.
I now turn to the question of the repayment of grants in cases where houses which have received them are subsequently sold. The hon. Member for Widnes referred to this matter. I agree with him that this is not an easy problem. If an owner receives a grant in respect of his house in order to prevent it falling into disrepair, since the grant comes from public money the house should be open to the public. That rule has to be applied with a certain amount of commonsense, however, because we are dealing with a series of different types of houses.
It is one thing quite rightly to impose this condition upon a great house with an enormous suite of state rooms and formal gardens and say that all of it must be open to the public if the owner has received a grant. But that is not the only category of house with which we are dealing. There is also the small manor house—referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford—which has perhaps four or five bedrooms, a couple of sitting rooms and a very small garden. Such a house may be of great architectural value, but it would be unfair to expect the owner to have the public running about all over the place on two or three days a week. For that kind of house the right solution would be to say the members of the public should be allowed to visit it upon application to the owner.
If a group of people happen to be interested in that type of architecture or in the design of the garden, or in some piece of furniture or a picture in the house, they should be allowed to see them on application to the owner. Although


such a house may be of great architectural quality the owner cannot be expected to have the public in the house two or three days a week as might well happen if the house was geographically in a rather popular area. That would seem to me unreasonable. I know that the Historic Buildings Council does not impose that condition on the owner of that sort of house, and quite rightly.
There is a third category, which may include a house of first-class importance but which geographically is almost inaccessible. Such a house may qualify for a grant under all the rules, but the cost of maintaining it, of smartening it up to the sort of condition the public rightly demands, would be vastly in excess of what the owner could possibly recoup in the form of half-crowns from visitors on one or two days a week. So I think that the condition that houses in receipt of a grant must be open to the public has to be applied not by rule of thumb but with a certain amount of common sense.
I feel that the grant should be attached to the house and not to the owner. When or if an owner sells the property, having received a grant, there would be an obligation on the purchaser to undertake to fulfil the obligations of the previous owner and to keep the house open to the public, in exactly the same way as in the case of a woodland property which has been dedicated under a Forestry Commission covenant and for which a grant has been made for planting and maintenance. The new owner of such a property is expected to undertake the obligations of the previous owner in carrying on the planting programme and abiding by the rules of good afforestation. If he does not, he repays the grant.
I am not at all certain whether my right hon. Friend could so arrange matters that this could be the subject of legislation. I do not believe that these things can be worked out by rule of thumb. Some time limit would have to be imposed. That would be the first difficulty. Suppose there had been a grant of £10,000 in 1955 in respect of a house which was subsequently sold in 1970. What is the value of the grant which the new owner would have to repay if he did not want to keep the property open to the public? I do not know how that could be worked out.
Take a second case where an owner died suddenly. He may have died a few months after the work on the historic house which he owned had been completed. Suppose he was killed in a motor accident. His trustees or executors would be in the unenviable position, not only of having in all probability to find rather heavy death duties, but also of repaying the grant which had been paid perhaps only a few months before.
In that sort of eventuality if these kind of conditions, however unexpected, were likely to arise, we might well destroy half the object of the whole scheme, because owners of houses in the top class which ought to qualify for a grant would refuse to apply for such a grant if they were getting on in years, or not in very good health, for fear the executors would have to repay the grant when they died. That is a problem which has to be looked at much more carefully than anything envisaged in their Report by the hon. Member for Widnes and his colleagues on the Select Committee.
I was also interested in the recommendation that the Historic Buildings Council and the Treasury should get together to see whether there ought to be interest-free loans. I agree with the Select Committee, but I was not frightfully impressed by the Treasury argument that a loan would not have much security. I cannot see why a loan made over a period of years should be less secure than a grant made in one year. Nor do I think that a loan ought necessarily to be given instead of a grant. There ought to be considerable licence. It ought not to be an "either/or" transaction, but in exceptional cases it might be "both and".
There is no doubt whatever that the historic houses hold great attractions for the general public. The published figures show that each summer somewhere just short of 2 million visitors pay half-a-crown, or whatever the sum might be, to go to look at historic houses which have been in receipt of a grant from the Historic Building Council. There is not the slightest doubt, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford said, that when the public go to look at an historic house, they infinitely prefer to see a house as the living entity of a home instead of some vast, empty, marble mausoleum containing only


ghosts of the past. The one is living and the other is dead; the one has an atmosphere and the other is a vacuum. There is no doubt, whether on grounds of the economics of sheer cost or on grounds of sentiment, that it is far more expensive to get a house back into decent repair once it has been abandoned than if it can be saved before it is abandoned.
For these reasons I think we in this House tonight—my noble Friend and others—ought to ask ourselves, bearing in mind the number of houses and other buildings—public and private—of great architectural and historic importance, whether one-twentieth of 1 per cent. of the total sum we spend annually in this country on buildings of all kinds is sufficient to be devoted to historic buildings.

9.14 p.m.

Mr. Ede: First, I wish to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) for the way in which he introduced this debate, and those who have participated in it for the tributes they have paid to the work of the Historic Buildings Council, of which I have been a member from its beginning and in which we have had only one change—when the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) was substituted for the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane), who attained the high dignity of a seat on the Government Front Bench.
I can assure the hon. Member that all his old colleagues valued the great work he did as a chartered surveyor in assisting us in our negotiations with some of the house owners who applied to us. In fact, towards the end of his association with us, I began to wonder whether, if they all claimed all that they could by way of Income Tax and agricultural subsidies, there would be any need for the Historic Buildings Council at all, but that they could all be expected to keep up their houses out of money they had not previously known how to get. However, I am afraid that his ingenuity would not have been quite sufficient to relieve us of all our duties.
In addition to interest in historic buildings, I have had a long-sustained interest in ancient monuments. I want to congratulate the Ministry of Works and successive Ministers on the improvement they have established in the custodians

and guides employed at these places. I recollect being shown around Holyrood House about 40 years ago, in a small party that included two American ladies, by a guide who had obviously been a non-commissioned officer in a Scottish regiment. In each room, the American ladies started asking questions, and the guide then had to go back to the beginning. If his recitation was interrupted, he had to start again—he could not take it up in the middle.
In recent visits to big and small ancient monuments where guides and custodians are in service, I have been greatly impressed by the way in which those people have received instruction which they are able to impart to the visitors, and which enables them to answer questions whether they are asked before the start, or in the middle of their recitation, or at the end of it. That adds very considerably to the pleasure of visiting these places.
I want now to deal with one remark of the hon. Member for Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe). We are handicapped by Government accounting. As long as Government accounts are kept on a receipts and payments instead of on an income and expenditure basis, everybody connected with the service will be handicapped by financial arrangements that are limited to the period of one year. I hope that the hon. Gentleman's remarks will not fall on deaf ears.
There were some criticisms in the questioning of the Chairman of the Historic Buildings Council for England—who brings to his task a great knowledge, not merely of the buildings but of the owners, and who assists us very considerably in our deliberations. I noticed that there was some criticism of expenditure on town halls. One finds that the history of this House is very largely associated with most of these town halls in small villages which, prior to 1832, were "rotten boroughs." It appears to have been one of the levies made on the two Members of Parliament for a borough that they should build a town hall and maintain it. Their successors in the great county divisions do not now, apparently, regard themselves as being called on to uphold that tradition.
Some of these buildings are gems of civic architecture. I think of the Town


Hall of Wallingford—one of the bigger and better of them—to which the Historic Buildings Council recommended a grant, and there are others dotted about in what are now small villages. They should be preserved as reminders of the past and of the way in which things have altered in recent years. I do not think we ought to have been criticised for being a little bit too casual in our attitude towards some of our duties, because the point that was raised by the hon. Member for Windsor is a matter that has to be settled in conversations which we do not want to get too formal in order to have the two sides arguing as if this were some intricate and difficult legal transaction.
The extent to which a small family—I mean small in numbers—can be inconvenienced if they are the owners of one of these houses which it is necessary to preserve must be taken into account when we are trying to arrange how the public access shall be secured and granted. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there are some cases where one day a week by appointment may be sufficient access, if it is well advertised and understood, but one does not want to be told that the Tuesday in the second week of the month or the fourth Wednesday in the month will be sufficient. There should be the quite clear understanding, which can be advertised in the local hostelries, as to the periods when the house is open, and provided that access is secured, and it always must be secured, I think it is a matter for arrangement. If the way in which it is entered into is a little too casual, I do not think that that is a criticism which we need fear.
Now we come to the big house. I thought that I had managed to get to Castle Howard in circumstances which would not reveal my identity. I went with the Archaeological and Historical Society of my constituency of South Shields on a Sunday excursion, but I regret to say that they had felt it necessary to inform the owners of Castle Howard that they would be accompanied by their Member of Parliament. So I was received by the wife of the owner, a very charming lady, and was wished "Good-bye" by the owner. My view about Castle Howard is this. I very much doubt if anybody has ever had a hot dinner there, and that is one of the difficulties of imagining

life in these great houses. I am certain it ought never to have been built, but having been built I am quite certain that it must be maintained. If I may say so to my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes, it is also important that the garden buildings, to which he alluded, should be preserved, provided that that can be done at reasonable expense.

Mr. John McCann: That was the difficulty that we found—that £20,000 for the garden buildings, the statues and the temple was far too much, when other historic buildings were crying out for more money.

Mr. Ede: It is not a matter of £20,000 per year, but once it is spent it will suffice for part of the expenditure for a good many years indeed. The estate also requires embellishments. We must not forget that Capability Brown and others transformed dreary expanses into vistas which are a delight to every human eye. It is as well to remind ourselves that the English genius has presented us with landscapes far better than anything nature could have done. We should remember always the statement of the Vicar to the poor man when he congratulated him on the way in which God and he had made such a beautiful garden. The poor man said, "You ought to have seen it, Sir, before I came on the scene". This is all part of our heritage.
We were seriously handicapped in our work when a predecessor of the noble Lord declined to let us take any account of what we called "outstanding group value". I rejoice that the noble Lord has reversed that decision. What most of us regard as the typical English scene is the village street in a small market town in which no one building is of great outstanding architectural value, but which as a whole is unique and reminiscent of the England which is developing continually. It is the same with the cottages, the church and the vicarage round a village green. If they make a beautiful picture, although no one house can be said to be of outstanding architectural interest and no one knows who the architect was, if there ever was one, they make a picture far more typical of the English life than Castle Howard or other great houses
We were concerned at the reaction of an owner who asked what it would cost


to put his house in order. When he was told he said "When it was built in the early eighteenth century it did not cost half as much. Therefore, how can it cost as much to put it in order today?" What the hon. Member for Ashford said about dry rot and how once one starts opening up one never knows what will be discovered is one of the answers to that query.
The House has had good value for the money it has laid down. I wish we could find a few more houses that describe a humbler life than that which was lived in the large houses which account for so much of our expenditure. I am certain that the smaller houses represented the happier lives, the more useful lives, and a better history of the English people.

9.29 p.m.

Sir Eric Errington: I want to mention only two matters which I consider to be important. Anyone who has listened to the debate will realise that the work which is being done by the Ministry is greatly appreciated. The devoted approach of the people in the Ministry and those who work with them in this matter calls for mention, but as my hon. Friend, the Member for Ashford (Mr Deedes) said, also for a conscious balance. In my view, an effort should be made to make many of our ancient monuments more attractive and more suitable places for people to visit, and perhaps to stay for a time to enjoy the beauty.
The best illustration I can give is that of Stonehenge, which is, I believe, the one monument we have which really makes a handsome profit. At Stonehenge there is now, or there was when we went there some time ago, a comparatively small place where teas are served. Everything is hugger-mugger, with sweets, picture postcards and all the rest in a confined space. We were told that this small building had not been replaced by more suitable and adequate premises because, if anything of that kind were built, there would be a danger of it spoiling the monument.

Mr. Francis Noel-Baker: Hear, hear.

Sir E. Errington: I doubt that very much.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: Will not my hon. Friend

agree that much of the charm of Stonehenge lies in its magnificent open setting? Any restaurant or car parking facilities would have to be very carefully sited out of view. Indeed, that is the criticism one could make of the present car parking arrangements.

Sir E. Errington: I agree, of course, that it would need careful siting, but there is a dip in the ground where an appropriate building could be located. That is but one example of an approach which is not, I think, fully understood by the Ministry.
I go further and say that I should like there to be son et lumiere performances at some of our ancient monuments. They should not take place only in occupied buildings, although I know that the present idea is that they should. For instance, Fountans Abbey, with its lovely green sweep down from the actual ruins, would be an excellent place for such a public occasion. If people could be gathered ther for a special purpose of that kind, we should vastly increase the popularity of those lovely buildings. I hope that my noble Friend will consider such possibilities. Classical plays, medieval plays and the like performed within or about our ancient monuments could do much to increase the knowledge and use of our wonderful heritage of buildings.

9.33 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: I thank the Estimates Committee, the Sub-Committee and the Chairman of the Sub-Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl), for the work which has been done for the public benefit and for the way in which it has been put before us both in the Report and in what has been said tonight. On behalf of all my hon. and right hon. Friends, I join in thanking also those who serve voluntarily on the various bodies which give advice and which work in that process which is called listing, scheduling and recording.
Substantially and broadly, the Minister is accepting the Report of the Estimates Committee, subject to three points which await the investigation of a Treasury working party. I look with some suspicion on Treasury working parties. I hope that they will proceed with reasonable rapidity and with due regard to the


public interest. On the other hand, I have the impression that there is too much overlapping in the business of listing, scheduling and recording and that if approached in a sensible manner the work can be not only cheapened but expedited, which I think is very important. Progress in some respects is disappointingly slow.
Secondly, the Report provides some very useful and interesting information. This is a continually changing problem. I hope that the Ministry will find it possible to resume the practice of issuing annual reports and letting us see what goes on. We should not have to depend on the recommendation of an Estimates Committee.
I attach the greatest importance to what is called presentation. It does not seem to me that our heritage can be regarded in the abstract. It is there for the people of the country to look at. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) that much of it consists of groups of small buildings, the preservation of which in one form or another is just as important as the preservation of large houses. That is perhaps the concern of the planning authority rather than the Ministry.
I wish to make three points about large houses. First, there are plenty of cases in which a house may even be acquired and the owner may go on living in it. I hope that the possibility of putting quite a number of people into some large and unmanageable buildings will not be forgotten. The housing conditions in some parts of the country still leave much to be desired, and we should not be so careful of every nicety of preservation that we omit to consider that possibility. I can think of other possible uses, but perhaps that is enough for the moment.
Secondly, what we do concerning the surroundings of buildings ought to be tested by one rather simple standard. In the Report there are lists of visitors year by year. Sometimes the number of visitors goes up, sometimes it goes down. Sometimes it goes up very sharply. It seems to me that that is the right test to apply. If fewer people are going to a certain monument, we should consider why. I can give several possible reasons. First, I do not entirely agree that we

ought to neglect the surroundings, at any rate in many oases. A second reason is the tea problem and the third is the question of what is presentation, advertisement, or whatever one may call it, both at home and abroad. After reading the Report, I am not at all happy that that matter has been sufficiently considered. A great deal has been left to the tourist organisations. For instance, there does not seem to be any comprehensive guide or map. I should have thought that there was a great deal to be said for something of that sort.
I now wish to say a word or two about owners. I hope that attention will be given to the possibility of obtaining people's Income Tax figures when a grant is being considered. The Treasury was in favour of that. The figures must be given by the man asking for the grant and not by any one else.
Lastly, I feel that if local authorities are to be approached there is room for tackling, not only the parish councils—and we must remember that there is not such a thing as a parish council in Scotland—but also the county councils a little more thoroughly than appears to have been done. I promised to take a very short time, and I sit down wishing the Ministry well in this work. This is no party matter.

9.39 p.m.

The Minister of Works (Lord John Hope): The Committee used these words very early in its report:
Your Committee would like to record the good impression received of the high regard and respect in which the Department and its officers are held. In making some specific criticisms and suggestions. Your Committee hope that they will be considered against this background of a task wisely and prudently discharged.
I do not quote those words in any way as a mark of complacency on my part—far from it. I and my Department regard this tribute as a spur, not only to the maintenance of our standards but to their improvement whenever and wherever possible.
I add my personal tribute to those which have been so freely paid on both sides of the House to those who serve me in the Ministry. I also include in that tribute the Historic Buildings Councils and their Chairmen. I sum up that introduction by offering humbly my congratulations to this Committee on a very valuable and thoroughly constructive


Report. This great task of the preservation and presentation of our past—for that is what it is—is a most inspiring challenge, and it is impossible to separate one of those two aspects from the other and it is necessary to preserve the balance between them.
I am most grateful to the House for the way in which the balance has been so helpfully preserved during the debate. I and those with me do our best—and it is not always easy—to preserve the right balance. I wish to pay one more tribute. It is in the context of presentation. I am sure the House would wish me to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) who as Parliamentary Secretary to my Ministry did so much along the lines of presentation.
The hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) referred to his feelings romantically and not unsuitably as those of a twittering songbird on the field of battle. It was a song which I think was thoroughly to the liking of the House, and I will take up one or two of its notes. He came straight to the point, which other hon. Members have touched on, namely, the apparent confusion of various sources of action here. I say "apparent" because undoubtedly there does seem to be some confusion. I do not believe that the confusion is quite as bad as it seems, but nevertheless there is undoubtedly a case to be looked into and, as the House knows, it is being looked at now by this Working Party. I assure the House that the Working Party is getting on with its work extremely well and quickly. It has got right into the investigation already. It is meeting regularly, and it is composed of Ministers.
The hon. Member next dealt with presentation. He made a point, which was taken up later by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford and other hon. Members, concerning the chance that existed to stir up local authorities. I certainly echo the words used in this debate concerning local authorities. I particularly echo the words of one hon. Member who divided the local authorities into the extremely helpful and the less helpful ones, to put it no lower.
I and my Ministry are extremely grateful to those local authorities who have helped us and are helping so much. There are, however, some authorities who

still do not seem to realise that it is their duty, just as it is the duty of others of us, to take an interest in the past of the country so far as it concerns them. I regret to say that I have encountered one instance where an official of the county council expressed his view that it was no business of the ratepayers to take any interest in the past. If that were at all widespread, it would be serious, but, thank goodness, it is not.
Local authorities, except district councils, have power under the Ancient Monuments Act, 1913, to buy or to take guardianship or to make grants. They have had the power all these years. I hope very much that as a result of this debate, there will be a reawakening of interest and a readiness to attack the problems on the part of some local authorities who have not so far seen their way to do so.
The hon. Member for Widnes made a plea, which, like so much else, was echoed by both sides of the House, that reasonable amenities must be provided without vulgarisation. The hon. Member said that we must have adequate facilities and elementary comforts. As the Committee recognised and as, I think, the House knows, we are doing our level best to get right up to date in this context.
My hon. Friend the Member for Alder-shot (Sir E. Errington) asked about Stonehenge. This is what I am anxious to do—and I have put my request to the National Trust, which owns the surrounding land—I want to substitute one low, unobtrusive building for the three little buildings which now exist and which are not particularly beautiful. I hope very much that I shall receive a helpful answer from the Trust.
The existing car park and the main hut have been there for twenty-five years and have not spoilt Stonehenge for anybody. If one stands anywhere near Stonehenge, however, one cannot fail to see the ugliness of Larkhill in the distance. Any hope that one can get back to the sort of neolithic openness that was once ideal is, therefore, doomed to failure.
The hon. Member for Widnes also asked me to concentrate on the most promising examples. I think that he meant that we should pick out the most promising schemes on which to launch our attack. That is precisely what we have been doing for some time and what


we accelerated last year. There was an extremely interesting result, the subject of which the hon. Member mentioned, namely, Scarborough Castle. The result of our attack there has been a 54· 6 per cent. increase in admissions and a 73· 1 per cent. increase in sales. It shows therefore what can be done if one brings the right amount of artillery to bear on the right target, and we shall continue on these lines.
The hon. Member criticised the provision of signs at Scarborough. We may already have seen to that but I will check on it. At any rate progress at Scarborough belies the criticisms which the hon. Member felt that he ought to levy. On the question of cutting the grass too much there are two views. One must keep the grass down to protect the monument and also to ensure that the plan is perfectly clear for those who want to see it.
The hon. Member also asked how we applied the test to an application for a grant for a historic building. Probably by accident, but significantly, he omitted the operative word when he quoted the words "historic or archaeological interest". The operative word is "outstanding". That is the answer to the hon. Member's question on the test and that is the test which the Historic Buildings Councils try to apply.
Several hon. Members made the point, which was worth mentioning, that these grants should not be intended to help the owner. Indirectly they do because they help the owner to repair what he has got, but it would be a great mistake for anyone to look at these grants in the context of some person receiving them from the taxpayer for himself. The money given in these grants must be paid in the course of the repair of the house concerned, and that is in the public interest. That is all there is to that point and to the anxiety which I know is felt from time to time in the country.
I was asked whether we put too much on the Chairmen of the Councils. I do not think that we do and I hope that we do not. We have been very fortunate in our chairmen. We have always tried, and we must try, to get the best men. If one gets a good chairman he must be by definition an able man capable of stand-

ing pretty tough burdens. Those we have are certainly able to do that.
The question of the financial position of the owner when he asks for a grant is important. It is not an easy matter, but I assure the House that in every case the chairman of the relevant Historic Buildings Council goes confidentially but absolutely thoroughly into the owner's means. I believe that as long as this system works as it is now working this is much the best way to deal with the matter.
On the question of the repayment of grants on sale, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe) and the hon. Member for Widnes referred, as I said in my answers to the Select Committee's recommendations, that will be examined. It would be wrong for me to express any opinion on it, because if one is going to examine something one is going to examine it, and I shall examine it with a very open mind. I can see possible snags here in terms of grants not being asked for where they should be asked for in the interests of the public when a house ought to be repaired. This must be considered very carefully.
We heard about Castle Howard. I was extremely glad that both sides of the House felt that on the whole this difficult case was rightly tackled. Not the least enchanting part of the story was the visit of the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) to this lovely place.
Great houses or small houses—there is no arbitrary division. So long as a great house or a small house, or a group, is outstanding in the opinion of an Historic Buildings Council, then it will recommend a grant. There is the difficult point about standards in one country as opposed to standards in another. One or two hon. Members did not feel too happy about that, but I believe it to be right.
It is very difficult to decide how one can differentiate, but, like other things which are difficult to describe, this does work. We have a council in each country. Each Council knows the standards in its country better than anyone else. Then, if there is difficulty as between a recommendation from one country and a recommendation from another country, in the end there is the Minister and his expert advisers to try to hold a fair


balance. I believe that this differentiation is vital in the interests of the three countries.
The hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. G. Roberts) made a point about which I want to reassure him. It concerned whether power should be taken to open up buildings. We have looked into it, and the legal position is that we already have that power under the Act. Until the point arose, I do not think that it was certain that we had the power, but we have now ascertained that we do possess it.
Low interest loans were mentioned, and again I have undertaken to consider it. One can see difficulties, but the idea has merits.
My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor made a number of valuable points, and he dealt with the dilemma of an Historic Buildings Council in seeing a few jobs done superbly well or many jobs rather less well done. I believe that he was right in saying that the present system is correct: what we do we must do superbly well, and if that means that other jobs cannot be done it also means that we have done what we have done to the best of our ability.
I am most grateful to the House for the way in which the debate has gone. For my part, I wish that we had more opportunities to discuss this important matter. This has been rather a short debate, and I would have liked to have

heard more hon. Members, for it is most helpful to me to do so. However, I hope that this will not be the last opportunity to discuss a subject which is not a light one and which has a great deal to do with the past of these countries and the example that we can give to the world in the future.

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, could he answer a question about Stonehenge? Would he examine the possibility of putting these various facilities underground before he commits himself? We hope that one day the unsightly phenomena at Larkhill will be removed. In the meantime is it not possible to put them underground?

Lord John Hope: We have had a go at the lavatories already. They are already underground. No doubt the hon. Member will agree that this is a question of priorities and that we have tackled it in the right way so far. It was an expensive job. It would be extremely expensive to put the car park and the other things underground.

Mr. MacColl: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question again proposed.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Committee Tomorrow.

RAILWAY SERVICES, DURHAM

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Gibson-Watt.]

9.59 p.m.

Mr. Charles Grey: On 2nd January, this year, there were alterations in train services which greatly affected Durham. Opposition to the alterations came from many quarters. I received many letters from my constituents, and the Chairman of Durham County Council made known his objections.

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.-—[Mr. Gibson-Watt.]

Mr. Grey: I have also had a letter from the Durham City Council, and the local branch of the N.U.R. strongly opposes the proposals. I have had letters from constituents expressing their grievance, and many of them have spoken to me personally and have made their views known in no uncertain way. In spite of all the objections, the alterations came into effect. Is it any wonder that there is general discontent with the powers that be about what they have done?
I have been rightly asked what advantages there were in the alterations. Frankly I do not know. The letter which I received on 21st December, 1960, from the Chairman of the British Transport Commission and that which I received from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport two days later did not help me very much. The general feeling among my constituents is that the people who bother themselves with plotting and re-timing trains do not care a tinker's cuss how many people are inconvenienced so long as there is a measure of satisfaction somewhere.
I know that I shall be told by the Parliamentary Secretary that all these matters are beyond his control and are entirely for the day-to-day administration of the Transport Commission.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay): The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay) indicated assent.

Mr. Grey: He will no doubt say that the appropriate authority in this case is the Transport Users' Consultative Committee, which is appointed by the Parliamentary Secretary and which represents a wide section of transport users.

Mr. Hay: The Minister appoints them.

Mr. Grey: The general idea is that users of the Commission's services and facilities may make representations to that Committee on matters such as this. I wonder how far this kind of machinery has been successful. It does not appear to have been successful in this case. May we be told how it works? May we be enlightened about how to set about the task of assessing the views of transport users? May we be told what methods are adopted to find out what people think? I get the impression that not much is done in this respect.
This view is strengthened by an interview I had on the subject with a constituent of mine. He told me that he was a frequent user of the train services. In fact, he travelled on most days of the week, and had done for many years. He pointed out that, although he often travelled on trains, he had never been asked anything about the train services. I mention that case, because it is typical of the experience of thousands of other people. Nobody seems to bother to find out what they think.
In view of that, I am tempted to make the declaration that there was never at any time any attempt to get to know what the people in Durham and the surrounding districts thought about these alterations before they came into effect. Had they been consulted, I am sure that the British Transport Commission would have thought twice before bringing them into being.
The most amazing thing is that when the Chairman of the British Transport Commission wrote to me on 21st December he tried to give the impression that the people of Durham had not been overlooked. I may say in parenthesis that his letter was in reply to one I had sent him complaining about the cutting out of the Durham stop on the journey from Newcastle to Liverpool. He tried to give reasons for the alteration. He even went as far as to sympathise with the Durham passengers who would have to change at Darlington. He went on


to explain that there would be reserv-able accommodation on the Liverpool train for people who boarded the train at Darlington, and that at Durham Station they would be able to book a seat for an extra 2s.
This is a poor sop for the Durham people. They are asked to be reasonable. How can one expect people to be satisfied with this kind of alteration when one realises the inconvenience to which they will be put. First, they will be inconvenienced by having to change at Darlington. Secondly, to ensure getting a seat, they will have to pay 2s. extra. To be told that, and at the same time to expect them to believe that they have not been overlooked is asking a bit too much. If the British Transport Commission thinks that it has acted like a kind of godfather, I assure the Parliamentary Secretary that there are thousands of people who think differently.
May we now look at the two changes that have been made? First, until 2nd January there was the 9.16 a.m. train to Liverpool. I referred to this earlier. It was a very good train, very popular and well patronised. I have used it on occasions when I have found it necessary to visit the Liverpool area. The Durham stop has been blotted out. Therefore, to catch the same train I have to get to Darlington in time to catch it there. No doubt I will be told that the object of the alteration is to speed up this train, but the real effect is that people will be on the road for even longer than they were before. While this is true for the people living in Durham City it will be even more so for people who live outside Durham who have to do the journey by car or bus.
I should like to quote my own experience, because I believe that it is typical of many. I live about six miles east of Durham City. Originally, if I wanted to go to Liverpool all that I had to do was to catch a local bus at my village at 8.25 a.m. That got me to Durham at about 9 o'clock. I then walked to the station which was only a few minutes away, and there was the train. It was as easy as that.
What happens now? I have to get on a bus an hour earlier, in order to get into Durham earlier, in order to catch

a train which will enable me to get my connection at Darlington. On top of that, in order to ensure getting a seat I must pay 2s. Even to do that I must make the journey into Durham. That is another inconvenience, not only for me but for others like me. It boils down to this: many passengers from Durham and the surrounding districts have a longer journeying time merely to satisfy the people who join the train at Newcastle. I hope that I do not seem to be too cynical about this, but the result of all this supposed magnificent reorganisation is that four or five minutes only are gained. It is amazing, but it is true. Is it really worth putting people to all this trouble and inconvenience in order to save such a short time?
I have another complaint to make in connection with the cutting out of the Durham stop in the case of the 5.10 p.m. train from Newcastle to Liverpool. People have spoken and written to me about it. One lady wrote to me explaining how her two sons and twenty-five other boys are affected by this change They go to school somewhere in Newcastle and they used to take that train each day. They cannot do so now because it does not stop at Durham. I made certain inquiries about this train and I found that, on an average, sixty persons travelled on it each day, and that on Saturdays, when Newcastle United were playing at home, that figure rose to between 500 and 600. That was the position when Newcastle played well.
Whatever the Joint Parliamentary Secretary may say about these alterations, I can only say that they are bad and ill-conceived, and that the persons responsible have been ill-advised. The only thing that has happened is that some people have benefited at the expense of others.
I wonder whether anyone realises the harm done to Durham itself. I know that it is a small City, but it is still a pretty good centre, and a very important one. People come from all over the world to the City and to see the beauties of the great cathedral, of which Sir Walter Scott wrote:
Half church of God and half castle against the Scots".


It is still the desire of many people to see it. With all the confidence I possess I say that to do a thing like this to Durham can do nothing but harm. It should not be belittled in this way. There are many other points that I have not the time to elaborate, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not do anything to the disadvantage of Durham. I hope that it will not end up as a place through which mainline trains pass. I ask for a train service which will allow people to come into or leave Durham with as little inconvenience as possible. In short, it should have a train service in every sense of the word.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. William Ainsley: I appreciate this opportunity of joining with my hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. Grey) in his complaint about the rail services in that part of the country, as my constituency adjoins his and the same problems confront many of my constituents. We pride ourselves on the historic aspect of the City of Durham and particularly the beauties of its centre. Durham is the natural administrative centre for the county. There is the ancient university and the cathedral, and at Darlington Station there is on view that monument to the iron road, the first locomotive.
I frequently pass a wrought iron notice pointing the direction to Weardale and to the Lakes which, ironically, we are encouraging people to visit. But there is no passenger train service to that part of the country. At one time the transport picture was that of a tree with branches spreading out in every direction, but today the passenger facilities for travel to the west have been lopped off. Weardale was lost some years ago although now we are trying to convert that into a tourist area and to encourage people from Norway and Sweden to visit it.
The Great North Road cuts the county into two parts but the divisions of Bishop Auckland, North-West Durham, Consett, and Blaydon have no railroads and people have to rely on road transport to bring them to Durham City. Almost two-thirds of the trains between London and Edinburgh pass through Durham City Station without stopping. Suppose that from one of the sputniks circling round the world some visitor were para-

chuted into the centre of the City of Durham and they wanted to go to one of the two capital cities. He would see that the trains passed through Durham without stopping and could conclude that the mentality of the people was such that they ought to be living in a mental institution.
It is time we examined the structure of our road and rail transport to ensure that we provide proper services. We should not allow them to be cut down, with the consequent reduction in the standard of living of the people. Our constituents prefer to travel on road services because of the inconvenience of rail services. In many parts of the west of Durham this causes chaos in the road services. The Ministry has to spend millions of pounds making motor roads, although we already have the iron road of which we in the North-East are noted as the pioneers.
Will the Minister investigate the problem of changing from rail to road so that we may have a reasonable service for our constituents? I am pleased to have had the opportunity to give my support to my hon. Friend the Member for Durham.

10.20 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay): The hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Grey) raised this subject on the Adjournment principally, I believe, to ask what was the purpose of the changes in the railway services around Durham which were instituted by the North-Eastern Region of British Railways on 2nd January? These changes, I am told, affect the areas of Newcastle, Durham, Sunderland, West Hartlepool, Stockton and Darlington and the object was to enable the railways to run fast diesel trains from Newcastle and Tees-side to Leeds and Liverpool.
The alteration was made necessary by the introduction by British Railways of the Trans-Pennine diesel service and the improvement of the inter-city service between Newcastle and Liverpool. I am told that this involved in two cases the cutting out of a stop at Durham. Formerly there were three services every weekday between Liverpool and Durham and two between Durham and Liverpool, and now there will be one fewer through


service in each direction each weekday. That, I understand, is the extent of the change.

Mr. Grey: The Commission has retimed one.

Mr. Hay: In addition, I am told that certain local diesel trains are being run between Durham and Darlington and the passenger can thereby join the fast train at Darlington and, according to the timetable, can reach Liverpool in less time than when formerly he travelled direct from Durham. In any event, as I am sure the hon. Member for Durham appreciates, these are matters of day-today management which Parliament has expressly excluded from the responsibility of the Minister of Transport. Therefore, they are not matters in which it is possible for the Minister to intervene even if he wished to do so.
I am sorry that, for these reasons. I cannot comment on the difficulties of passengers in the Durham area, no matter how important they may be, nor how difficult they find their problems. One matter I can discuss tonight is the position of the transport users' consultative committees in this situation. The hon. Member for Durham and the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Mr. Ainsley) asked me some questions about that. The transport users' consultative committees have two principal functions. The first is to consider proposals for major alterations to the character of the rail services provided. If, for example, a line is to be closed or a service withdrawn, or if British Railways decide to withdraw all expresses from a particular area, those are matters for the committee to consider. The second major function of the committees is to consider complaints lodged with them by any member of the public on any aspect of the Commission's services.
In regard to the first of these functions, the procedure is that British Railways put proposals to the transport users' consultative committees, and the local authorities and any other interested bodies are in practice notified at the same time. The committee then investigates the matter, and makes its recommendations accordingly. But such matters as the re-timing of trains, or the cutting out of one train—unless the character of the service was substantially altered—would not normally be put to

the transport users' consultative committees or to the local authorities.
It is clear that it would put both the railways and the committees in an almost impossible position if that were not the case. If the railways were required to process through the committees every proposal for alterations in the time-table, it would mean an enormous amount of delay in implementing what we hope would usually be useful changes.
It has to be remembered that we are aiming at viability on the railways, and despite what the hon. Member for Durham, North-West said, we must always bear in mind the general financial position of the railways. They are still losing a very great amount of money, and the taxpayer is having to bear the burden of that loss. We do not, therefore, want to put any unnecessary impediments in the way of their attaining that position of viability.
If the committees had to deal with such a volume of business of this kind it would obviously bog them down. It would place a great deal of strain on the patience, and on the willingness to serve, of the present members of the committees—who are voluntary, who give their time freely, and who do an extremely useful service.
The committees are representative of user interests. The Minister selects the majority of the members to represent particular interests, and not particular localities. In appointing members, he has regard to the desirability of ensuring a fair geographical spread throughout the area concerned. For instance, the committee in the North-East Area, which covers Northumberland, Durham and the North Riding of Yorkshire comprises twenty members, nine of whom, including the chairman, come from Durham County. If there is a complaint about the Commission's services, users can ask the transport users' consultative committee to look into the matter, and for this propose "users" includes local authorities and other local bodies.
How do these committees assess the opinions of users? No procedure is laid down by the Minister, and there is no provision in the Act to regulate the methods by which the committees work. In practice, I understand that when the committee receives a complaint the


secretary circulates details to all members and, at the same time, the comments of the railway management on the complaint are also circulated. The matter can then be discussed by the committee at its next meeting, if it so wishes, and, if necessary, it can decide to see and hear complainants.
I ought just to add that as the members of the committees are representative of users, they are usually fairly closely in touch with the transport needs of the area, and with the problems and difficulties of other transport users. They can, therefore, assess the strength and validity of any complaint made.
That is all that I can really say to the hon. Gentleman because, as he will

realise, my right hon. Friend has no responsibility in this matter at all. I have, however, tried to give what little information I can. I sympathise, of course, with the difficulties of individuals, but this is not a matter in which my right hon. Friend can interfere. He is often accused of interfering with the railways—a charge that is quite wrong—but I can assure both the hon. Gentleman and the House that my right hon. Friend certainly does not intend to interfere with the British Transport Commission's statutory responsibility for running the country's trains.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.